Local Government Elections (Referendum) Bill [HL]

Lord Tope Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is particularly appropriate today because, as she mentioned, she and I were first elected to the London Assembly in 2000 in the first, I think, elections conducted in England under a proportional representation system. Before I forget, I should declare my interest, limited though it is, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for introducing the Bill. It will come as no surprise that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench of course welcomes any debate on a system of proportional representation. I also have to agree with the noble Lord when he said—I think almost exactly this—that parties are all too often addicted to the system that enables them to win. That is undeniably true, but I want to show from personal experience that it is not always true.

I was a councillor in the London Borough of Sutton for 40 years, up until the last elections in 2014. For the last 32 years, Sutton Borough Council has been run by the Liberal Democrats. At only one council election since 1994 have the Liberal Democrats won less than 80% of the council seats—almost literally a one-party state, perhaps. Yet to my distress, suburban south London, particularly with a majority of people voting leave in the EU referendum, is not natural Liberal Democrat territory. I have to say I am still looking for such territory but, wherever it is, it is certainly not in the London Borough of Sutton.

Thirty-two continuous years of running the council, most of the time with an absurdly large majority, is a huge vote of confidence in the way Liberal Democrats have run that council over that period. Yet at only two elections in that time have the Liberal Democrats gained more than 50% of the votes—never mind anything like 80%—in the borough. That really is not fair to the minority of residents who would prefer to be represented by Conservative or Labour councillors—or even Green councillors. At the last London borough elections, in 2014, the Conservatives got 30% of the vote in Sutton but only nine of the 54 councillors—barely half what their vote, proportionately, would have entitled them to. Labour polled 15% of the votes, yet it has not had a single councillor in the London Borough of Sutton since 2002.

When the Labour Government were experimenting with various pilot schemes for increasing turnout, voter interest in elections and so on, I was leader of the council and proposed that Sutton would be willing to conduct the next London borough elections in Sutton under an STV system, provided that the London Borough of Newham—then and now I think 100% Labour —and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, then a Tory stronghold, although we will wait to see whether it still is, would do the same. I was not too surprised—this bears out the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—that neither the then Labour Government nor those two councils were prepared to do that. But I hope that gives a small doubt to the noble Lord’s understandable assertion of addiction to the system that helps you win.

My concern is not so much that the first past the post system is unfair to the Conservative and Labour parties in Sutton—frankly, they are more than adequately compensated for that all over the rest of the country—but that it is unfair to citizens everywhere, who should always be our first concern in judging any electoral system. First past the post is notoriously unfair to the citizen, with some votes carrying vastly more weight than others, and indeed far too many votes carrying no weight at all. That is my first principle in considering this issue.

The second principle is that the system by which representatives are chosen in our democracy cannot be left simply to the whim of currently affected incumbents, who clearly have a very partisan interest in the outcome. That, I think, is the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and a weakness, if I might say so, in his Bill. Leaving aside the shortcomings of referendums and the difficulties of getting a required majority there, if the final choice is left to local authorities, as he himself has said, in most cases—but not all—they have the greatest vested interest of anyone in keeping the system that got them elected in the first place. Hence we would prefer to see a reform that does not in any way give a deciding voice to those already entrenched in local authorities. We believe that, if a reform of this significance is urgent, effective and popular for one group of citizens, it should be not discretionary but universal.

That brings me to a third principle: the basic building blocks of our representative democracy in the United Kingdom should be broadly the same, unless there are important local circumstances which make that undesirable in that particular place. The huge success of the introduction of effective proportional representation for local authority elections in Scotland is not just an irrefutable argument for the extension of STV to England and Wales but a strong case for uniformity. Scottish electors have a very much better chance of seeing the candidates they vote for being elected—on average 75% of such candidates, compared with around 50% in the English counties. If in Scotland they exercise further preferences, it rises to 90%. It may take a generation, but over time that will mean that many more people will vote for positive reasons because of what they want, rather than voting for negative reasons, against what they do not want. Too often these days, people go to the polling stations, if they go at all, inclined to prevent something happening rather than to encourage it to happen. That state of mind is not in the interests of healthy democracy.

Why should only some citizens of the UK have a far more democratic system of representation, giving many more voters there a direct influence on the result of elections? Just as we believe that the extension of the franchise in Scotland to 16 and 17 year-olds has been an unqualified success, so we believe that the benefits of electoral reform should be available to all citizens of the UK. English and Welsh voters deserve just as much to enjoy the benefits of a more representative democracy. The STV form of PR in Scottish local elections has been an excellent pilot for the rest of the UK and has been a huge success by any objective judgment. Northern Ireland has benefited from the advantages of STV for over 40 years and Wales is currently examining it. Why should England and English voters be left behind? I hope the Bill stimulates the Government into action, but I am not too optimistic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe]

That simplifies one thing. I was going to say that many years ago I remember arguing in the Labour campaign for electoral reform that it was a very good idea as it would enable us to get rid of some people. I seem to remember I mentioned a certain Jeremy Corbyn and I was told, “Don’t be silly, he will never get anywhere in our party”. But, of course, as a serious point, one of the advantages of proportional representation is that it sharpens up parties. You see this in the European Parliament, where I sat for 25 years: both the left and the right have effectively gone off into their own parties, where they have influence but seldom power. This has its down side, as we saw recently in the German election, where, to an extent, the parties come too far into the middle, but it also has its up side in that it gets rid of some people who, as you might say, you would not want to take home for tea with mother. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.

I take all the points. You cannot draft a Bill like this that is perfect. That is why I drafted something very short which gives the Secretary of State the job of doing things. At the back of my mind I was mindful of the fact that since 1999, which is some way away, only 10 Private Members’ Bills introduced into this House have become law anyway, and none in the last two years. As I was drawn as number 15 in the ballot, I did not exactly think that I was storming towards legislative glory with the Bill. It was therefore drafted simply to initiate a debate.

I am pleased to hear the comments of my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Overall, my view is that some form of proportional representation would be an advance on the present system. The reason for giving some choice in the Bill was because everybody falls out about what the best system would be. However, I find it difficult to believe that a series of one-party states is the best way to run local democracy—it is as simple as that. I accept that the Greens may have won in Brighton, but they have got nowhere in my city of Cambridge despite regularly getting well into double figures in the vote. They always get between 15% and 20% of the vote, and they deserve some seats. Incidentally, the Conservatives normally get about 25% of the votes, and they also have no seats on the council, which is at the moment divided between a resurgent Labour Party—it will not lose in Cambridge until Labour wins in government; then, of course, it will all start to swing back again—and the Liberal party, which used to control the city but has gradually slipped downward. But this is not local democracy—it is just a reflection of what happens nationally.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am glad that his party has had 32 years in control of Sutton, but I am not sure that that will last much longer either.

[Lord Tope]

Last time we gained seats.

[Lord Balfe]

We will see.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked for a sharper Bill. I think I have dealt with that issue. You can never be right; a sharper Bill would of course have missed a lot of things out. He mentioned being clear about the system. However, we use all sorts of systems. I vote in building society elections on one system, for my club election on another, and for the Royal Statistical Society executive on another. Ballots regularly drop through my door inviting me to vote by post for the various bodies I am in, and between them they use many different systems. Funnily enough, I manage to understand them, as do a lot of other people who vote using them. Therefore a lack of understanding is not the problem.

I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say. I appreciate that the Government take a very different position from mine—indeed, it has not escaped my notice that there is not a single Conservative speaker in support of this Bill. I recognise that it is a minority sport. It was a minority sport in the Labour Party and it is even more of a minority sport in the Conservative Party; none the less, it is an idea whose hour is coming. As we move forward, I think that we have to say, “Who has adopted first past the post recently? No one. Who has moved to systems of proportional representation? Quite a lot of people”. There is invariably a demand for that in new systems.

I thank noble Lords and conclude my speech by asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I look forward to it being the law of the land, although probably not in my lifetime.

Housing: Rental Market

Lord Tope Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who raised this issue on a previous occasion. I will look at it. However, it is important to remind the House that many farmers are diversifying into tourism and the short-term letting of accommodation that may be surplus to their requirements is a useful source of income. It is important that rural areas that depend on tourism have a good supply of short-term accommodation for letting in order to support a viable tourist industry.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the research done for the Residential Landlords Association which showed, among other things, a 75% increase in a year in London in the number of multi-listings on the Airbnb website, despite the company’s announced crackdown? Does he agree that this suggests that a growing number of landlords are switching away from long-term letting—which, frankly, London desperately needs—because of the greater financial incentives for short-term lettings? What consideration are the Government giving to offering incentives to landlords to provide more longer-term tenancies?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is not possible for landlords in London to switch rented accommodation wholly over to short-term letting because of the restriction that I mentioned earlier: short-term lettings can only be for up to 90 days. Therefore, it would not be possible legally for a landlord to let his property on a short-term basis throughout the year. One has to get a balance. London has to compete with other tourist destinations and tourists expect to find a range of accommodation through organisations such as the one the noble Lord mentioned. Many London boroughs do not have an adequate supply of hotels, and therefore one needs a supply of short-term letting accommodation. Also, many Londoners, in their efforts to make ends meet, like to rent out their home on a short-term basis when they are not using it themselves.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment, which I think has the same purpose as that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I declare my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am not sure whether a liking for real ale is a declarable interest, but I am happy to declare it.

I support the amendment because of a particular local interest. When I looked at the website for a Member of Parliament in a neighbouring constituency, I found his campaign to save one of his local pubs. It included the statement:

“I would be interested to hear your views. I do have real concerns about the loss of pubs, which are an important focal point for local communities”.


The constituency is Croydon Central; the Member of Parliament is one Gavin Barwell. To be fair, it was a year or two ago, but the quote is still there on the internet—it is there for ever. I wonder how much he still has that concern, because the situation for pubs has certainly not improved in the year or two since he put that statement on his website.

I am particularly motivated to speak because of an issue causing considerable community interest in the ward that I represented until three years ago. A pub in that ward for most of the time I was a councillor was known as The Cricketers but more recently it became known as The Prince Regent, because allegedly the Prince Regent used to pass it on his way to Brighton and there was a vogue for changing pub names. We are talking about an outer London suburb and a time before the railways had brought the population to outer London. This pub had its origin in cottages built in the 1790s. That may not be very old in many parts of rural England, but in suburban London, the 1790s is quite old—it is one of the oldest buildings in London. In the 1850s, the Sutton Cricket Club was formed as the suburb started to grow. It used to play on the green opposite the pub, hence the pub becoming known as The Cricketers for more than a hundred years. So it has considerable historic interest. Whether it has architectural or historical merit is for others to determine, but it certainly has considerable historic relevance for the people who live there.

There is now a proposal to demolish the pub and build instead a nine-storey block of flats, considerably larger than the 18th or 19th-century building. The local community is campaigning hard to prevent the demolition of this historic monument, one of the very few in the area. It has applied to register it as an asset of community value, which has been exempt from permitted development rights only since 2015, so not too long ago. That process is under way and will, I hope, be successful, because the pub is considerably valued by the local community not so much as a drinking establishment but more because it represents something historic in a London suburb before the railways came, and is therefore of considerable historic significance. I hope that it will achieve registration as an asset community value, but I understand that even the status of assets of community value have their drawbacks.

I have spoken to our planners about this issue. They are very much in favour of this amendment and point out that if permitted development rights were withdrawn for all pubs, it certainly would not mean that they would all be preserved for ever regardless of the circumstances. Of course that would not happen; it would be absurd. If a public house is not viable and has no other beneficial use, it does not deserve to be preserved. However, simply to knock down a pub because it might make more money if it was turned into nine-storey flats is not in itself a justification for doing so. The removal of permitted development rights would mean that any proposal for demolition or development would be subject to the normal planning regime and to consideration by the planning authority. A decision would be made on whether the pub was viable and should be retained as a pub, with marketing conditions and a planning policy if necessary, or whether it was not viable but the building should be retained as part of a street scene, which may well be appropriate in the circumstances I am describing, or whether a complete redevelopment of the site should take place.

Another drawback to assets of community value, which I think was one of the most valuable measures introduced by the coalition Government under the Localism Act, is that the registration is valid for only five years. After five years you can apply to have the asset registered again, provided somebody remembers to do that, but there is no guarantee that it will be registered again. Therefore, while the provision is extremely valuable, it is not necessarily long term and is not without risk. Given the value that is attributed to pubs in particular circumstances, we are losing them speedily. I am told that 16 of the 69 pubs that existed 10 years ago in my London borough have gone. That is two a year disappearing from a London suburb with a growing population. Therefore, I strongly support both these amendments. I hope that our Minister will share the views expressed by the Housing Minister before he was the Housing Minister. I hope he will recognise that this is an important issue, that there is a way properly to resolve the situation, and that these amendments provide that solution.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend has ever studied the history of the most successful political party in Britain, as I am sure he has—I refer, of course, to the Conservative Party—he will know very well that for many periods in its long history it was supported financially by the brewers. The brewing industry played a very large part in supporting the Conservative Party in times gone by. They obtained some recompense for that support. My noble friend will recall that there was a period in history when the peerage was known as the “Beerage” because of the amount of compensation received by individuals who had supported the Conservative Party. Those people would turn in their grave if they thought that the Conservative Party of modern times was in any way against public houses which, as has been said eloquently by many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, perform an important role in not only our urban but our rural life.

I am familiar with a pub in the West End of London off the Edgware Road which dedicated itself to members of the Royal Air Force during the war and had pictures of all the great names from The Few, and so forth. The chap who ran the pub had a handlebar moustache; the pub was an object of great interest to tourists and others and was a great business. However, that pub has gone because the value of the property as a residential building was much greater than it was as a pub. Frankly, that is a tragedy for the tourist industry and for London. The closure of pubs affects the personality of our country not only in London but also in rural areas. I plead with my noble friend as a Conservative Peer to look at this issue most sympathetically. I hope that he will do so when it comes back on Report.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Tope]

105: Clause 183, page 95, line 15, after “authority” insert “outside Greater London”

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 105 I will speak very briefly to Amendments 106 to 118. I am very grateful that so many Conservative Peers have come in to hear what I have to say. I am afraid that I will disappoint them because I will be extremely brief. I have had what I hope was a very helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, from the Cabinet Office, who is making his first attendance at this Committee. Why he has waited for nine Committee days to come to experience it, he must now be wondering.

I was going to explain all these amendments rather more fully. Clearly, that is neither necessary nor desired at this moment. Very briefly, the amendments would, in summary, give the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities—that is very important—the right of first refusal on surplus public sector land that comes up for sale in their area. They would give the Mayor of London and the combined authorities further power to direct public bodies in their area on the disposal of surplus public sector land. They would include the Greater London Authority as a public authority in Clause 183, ensuring that Ministers must engage with the Mayor of London on the disposal of their interest in any land in the capital. They would allow for regulations to be issued to ensure that other public bodies looking to dispose of their interest in land in London must engage with the mayor and allow the mayor to issue guidance around the engagement. Finally, they would allow for regulations to ensure that reports on surplus land holdings by public bodies can be provided to the Mayor of London and mayors of combined authorities with land commissions.

As I said just now, I had a very helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am delighted to see that he is here and has sat patiently through the last hour of our proceedings. I now wait to hear, briefly, that he accepts my amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Valentine (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Making better use of surplus public land represents one of the best and quickest ways of getting homes built and thus meeting the Government’s targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I would be happy to discuss this with the noble Lord privately to explain our views. We believe it would add unnecessary bureaucracy, time and complexity, but I am happy to discuss this further with him.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, for coming in to demonstrate her support and having to do that so very briefly under these circumstances. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his support. It is not quite as unusual as he seemed to think. There have been many occasions over the years when that has happened. I also thank him for raising the point he did just now. Finally, my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, sent me the message very clearly although very briefly, and I take his point.

This is clearly not the time to pursue this further. It is clearly not the time to test the opinion of the House. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I ask the Minister, if he is to have a further meeting, to include those who spoke to this amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I have also added my name to the other three from both sides of the House. I have no personal interest to declare, other than that I am a resident of outer London, where this is not yet a problem. I stress “not yet” because the issue is growing so fast and exponentially that it is only a matter of time before it becomes so: not just in central London, where it is of major significance now, but elsewhere in London and in other parts of the country, although they are not affected by this legislation.

I spoke about this at Second Reading in July, at greater length in Grand Committee and on Report. The reason was that I learned more and more about the issues that residents of central London experienced daily from indiscriminate and largely unregulated short-term letting. To that extent, all of us are agreed—and agree with the Government—that we have no objections whatever to London residents wishing to sublet their London residence for a short period while they are on holiday or otherwise away. Where it becomes more difficult is when this grows and in many places, particularly in central London, becomes an industry.

I have been helpfully advised by Westminster City Council throughout this process. For understandable reasons, Westminster has experienced this issue hugely. It told me back in the autumn that for some time it has employed between four and six planners solely to deal with the enforcement of this issue of short lets. It has considerable experience both of the problem and of trying to enforce the law as it stands.

To digress for a moment, on Report I quoted what I had been told by the leader of Westminster City Council, who had told me:

“There has been no engagement with this local authority either at a political or an officer level”.—[Official Report, 11/02/15; col. 1306.]

In reply to the debate, in col. 1316, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, denied that and said that there had been full engagement with London authorities, specifically with Westminster. A few days later, on 13 February, the leader of Westminster City Council wrote to Lord Ahmad, saying that this was categorically “not true” and there had been no consultation with Westminster at that time. She wrote:

“I should also note that Westminster had no advanced knowledge of the detail of the policy note”,

which had then just been published,

“and would have been left to read about it online or in the newspapers”.

When the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, replies, does he wish to put the record straight? Like me, I am quite certain that the Minister was speaking in good faith. I repeated what I had been told. I have no doubt that he repeated what he had been told, but he and I now have in writing from the leader of Westminster City Council that he had been misinformed. He may wish to correct that.

Westminster has been helpful in all this. It speaks from experience and it is true to say that it would much prefer us to go for a 30-day limit rather than a 60-day one. Any limit is arbitrary, of course, and we have gone for a compromise. However, the most important issue for Westminster City Council, and any other local authority that has to enforce this, is that it must have some system of registration. To quote again what I have been told by Westminster, without that,

“we simply would not be able to identify where a property was let illegally on a short-term basis”.

Unless there is a registration system and the regulations require it, albeit a quick, simple, online system, which Westminster says they can set up probably in a matter of hours, then all the regulations—whether they comply with our amendments or the government amendments—will, frankly, be unenforceable and meaningless. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, says at least that the Government will require it in regulations.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, because I agree with everything he has said. When he discussed this with Westminster, I am curious to know whether they discussed the insurance implications—not so much the contents, but one assumes that the owner in a block of flats pays insurance through the service charge. Quite clearly, the lease must be being breached in the sense of the numbers. The insurance companies must have some view about this, because it leaves everybody else liable and may leave the owner of the particular dwelling subject to sanctions by the insurance company. That may be a route to helping to solve the problem.

[Lord Tope]

The noble Lord asks if I discussed this with Westminster: specifically no, not with Westminster City Council. However, in the course of the many months that this has been going on, my noble friends and I have heard from numerous individuals and organisations involved in this. It is indeed one of the issues that others have raised and the noble Lord is right to draw attention to it. Others have been health and safety, fire regulations and all sorts of issues, which will be helped, to some extent, by whatever regulations are introduced.

I began by saying I wanted to be brief. I think that I am temperamentally incapable of being brief on this issue, but I will try. On registration, which is absolutely critical, I will quote from the letter that the leader of Westminster City Council wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on exactly that point. She concluded by saying:

“Having dismissed the suggestion of a simple, light-touch notification process for those seeking to let out their property on a short-term basis”,

which is what the Minister did at the previous stage, she asks,

“how will a local authority be able to identify and therefore enforce against a property being let for the 91st day within a calendar year?”.

I re-emphasise the point because it is critical. Unless we have some sort of notification and registration process, it is simply unenforceable, whatever else we say and do.

The other issue I want to speak to briefly is how we determine that the property concerned is indeed the residential property belonging to the person letting it. It has been suggested that this is done by the requirement, in the Government’s amendment, to pay council tax. We all know that lots of people pay council tax, but it is not necessarily their residence, let alone their principle residence. It is a bit unusual for a Liberal Democrat to quote Westminster City Council so frequently, but it does have the greatest experience on this. It says:

“This provision would therefore change nothing. The real change would be if the Government stipulated that only principal permanent residences were eligible for short-term letting”.

That is the purpose of the amendment in our package.

We are now at the last possible stage of this Bill in this House, apart from ping-pong, and we need to understand why we are at this stage. I raised this issue—as did others—at Second Reading in July, we had a considerable debate on it in Grand Committee on 30 October and we returned to it in February, one day after the Government finally published their policy guidelines and then only under considerable pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who realised that he would have to reply to the debate. We are now trying to put into the Bill details of regulations that should have been properly and fully consulted over that nine-month period. We should have tried at least to reconcile the differences between the different interests—and they are substantially reconcilable if the Government had ever tried. The one local authority most directly involved and with the most experience states in writing twice that up until a week ago, it had had no such consultation.

We are now at the stage where the Government have understood, as I pointed out on Report on 11 February, that it is too late for the regulations to be tabled to receive their 40-days waiting period to be considered in this Parliament. On Report, that was impossible; it is clearly even more impossible now. For this Government not to give a blank cheque to whomever forms the next Government and whoever is the next Minister, we are now putting in the Bill details that ought to have been in regulations, drafts of which should have been produced months ago, discussed and consulted on so that whatever we are to legislate for was clear—hopefully agreed, but at least we could agree where the differences are. We are at the last possible stage putting in the Bill just what the Government until now said that they would not do, but ought properly to be in regulations that have been consulted on and largely agreed.

[Baroness Shields (Con)]

My Lords, I put on record my support for the measures being introduced by the Government to reform short-term letting across London. I do that in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s adviser on the digital economy, but also as the chairman of Tech City. Over the recess, noble Lords will have received a report entitled Tech Nation, which detailed the enormous social and economic benefits being generated by the digital economy—across the country, not just in London. The accommodation sector is a prime example of the sharing economy. It is led by a number of high-growth businesses in the UK which are global leaders in their field. They are hiring a lot of people to support those businesses. It also gives individuals the opportunity to leverage an unused asset and to generate income for themselves and their families.

In my role as chairman of Tech City, I have seen the enormous opportunity that that presents to the UK economy. I see five key benefits as a result of that reform. The first is a more optimal use of space by allowing short-term letting for short periods when homeowners are out of town, to utilise existing housing stock in a much more efficient manner. Secondly, it would be a boost to family incomes. The supplementary income derived from short-term letting can help individuals and families to top up their immediate incomes.

Thirdly, the reform will deliver more taxation to the Exchequer. Any earnings accrued via short-term lettings will have to be declared, thereby boosting Treasury receipts. Fourthly, the reform will provide more options for tourists. Many tourists around the world are now opting to rent a home versus staying in a hotel, especially for groups or families who may need a large living space or a garden, which a hotel or bed and breakfast simply cannot provide. Finally, this reform will help to boost local businesses and employment. New hospitality providers are creating large numbers of jobs. In addition, short-term lets often take place outside central areas, so businesses which may not have historically benefited from tourist footfall may now benefit from tourists staying in their area.

Aside from those overarching benefits, the reform will also provide clarity to Londoners who are now facilitating short-term lets and ensure that they take place in a more secure and regulated manner.

I understand and respect the concerns raised by Peers across the House related to unintended consequences of the reform. However, I am satisfied that the Government have now put in place measures which will protect London’s long-term housing stock and residential amenity. Specifically, the reform will be limited to those who are liable to pay council tax. A limit of 90 days in any calendar year for which residents can let out their residence will also ensure that homes are let out only for short-term occasions. Local authorities will also have power to apply to the Secretary of State for specific areas to be exempted from the provisions. In my view, the additional safeguards called for by the amendments are unnecessary and run counter to what we should be seeking to deliver: a proportionate, straightforward and progressive set of rules.

I should like to tackle the issues in turn. First, it is proposed in Amendment 7 that the total number of days in a calendar year for which a resident can let their property should not exceed 60. In my view, that is far too restrictive and fails to acknowledge the working and living patterns of many Londoners today. Other cities have reformed their laws to allow many more days to letters. Paris, France, allows 120 days, Hamburg 180 days, and San Jose, in the heart of Silicon Valley, also 180 days.

Secondly, it is proposed in Amendments 6 and 8 that the reform should be restricted to principal London residences only. I believe that it should apply to all residences. Often, secondary homes are left empty. In my view, from time to time, those homes should be available to let and utilised more efficiently.

Finally, on exemption powers, although I acknowledge the potential need for the Secretary of State to exempt certain areas from the new provisions, that should be the case only in extreme circumstances and where there is sufficient evidence that residential amenity is negatively impacted. The granting of exclusion powers to councils to restrict short-term letting to specific areas would, in my view, result in a regulatory patchwork across London that would provide neither clarity nor consistency for homeowners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having been able to take part in previous discussions on this matter, but I speak as leader of a London local authority and I consider that it is my responsibility to draw the House’s attention to the way this measure is perceived by a leader of a London authority. I am also by training a historian of Byzantium. I think that very few Byzantine emperors would have devised such a system for their capital city.

On the previous amendment, the Minister on the Front Bench argued very strongly against increasing bureaucracy and extra red tape. He also argued that London needed to be deregulated. However, I anticipate that, just a few minutes later, the Minister now on the Front Bench—my noble friend Lord De Mauley—will tell us the opposite of that and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested, will tell us that we need more complication and further regulation. I simply do not see the logic of that and I do not know of another leader of a London authority who shares the Minister’s view.

We heard the representations made by London authorities on a previous amendment. It is important to realise that this is not some bone-headed resistance from a bureaucratic body. People who are talking to government, or who wish to talk to government and advise them, have authority and the responsibility of satisfying the people of London on a day-to-day basis that their streets can be kept clean and be competently administered. I believe that they are clean and competently administered in most cases. We have a non-criminal system that was recently established with general consent and which I do not believe needs to be tampered with. If the Government really believe in deregulation and devolution, there is no rationale whatever in changing the London system.

My authority is a keen promoter of recycling. We pass all the Pickles tests. We do weekly collections and even collect from side alleys. We do not have bin snoopers but we do have the opportunity to impose a light-handed touch of regulation. In five years as leader I have not had a single call, letter or email complaining about this system. There is no evidence base that I am aware of to justify imposing a more complex system on London.

I suspect that at this stage the Government are not prepared to change their mind. That is a pity in the light of the arguments in the record that I have read and those that I have heard. Of course, it would be perfectly possible to proceed with two parallel systems. In fact, it would be interesting to see whether the Government’s more bureaucratic system outside London was more effective than the less bureaucratic system inside London. That could be a sensible way to test public policy. Even at this late stage, I urge my noble friend to consider whether the Government could not leave London well alone. That would not stop anything that is planned for the rest of the country in terms of decriminalisation. That is the considered view of experienced people in London based on their experience of doing the difficult job of trying to administer London and at the same time reduce staffing in local authorities and not take on extra bureaucrats to implement ever more complex systems. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on that when he comes to reply.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am the fourth current or former London borough council leader to speak in complete agreement with my colleagues—indeed, my former colleagues. The essential point has been made: what is wrong with the London legislation passed in 2007, which applies across London and was supported by all the London boroughs—it has to be supported by the London boroughs—that we now need Clause 57, at the end of five pages in the principal legislation, specifically deleting the provisions for London, and a four-page schedule, Schedule 12, implementing them?

There must be a pretty serious problem in London that needs fixing. It is supposed to be such a serious problem, but neither a current London borough council leader nor three former leaders from different parties and different parts of London are aware of any problem at all. The London legislation largely meets the Government’s intentions either specifically in decriminalisation or certainly in intent and purpose. The differences between the schemes are relatively minor, certainly not such as to require nine pages of principal legislation to deal with.

We ask, I think in my case for the third time during the passage of the Bill, what is so wrong with the London legislation that it requires this Bill to change it. What are the problems? What are the issues? There is no record of people being incorrectly or inappropriately prosecuted. Indeed, there is hardly any track record of people being prosecuted at all, so that is not really the object of it. The object is to encourage people to recycle and to comply, not to penalise them. It has a very well tested appeals system, albeit not tested in waste collection, which has not been a problem. It is the same appeals system as is used for parking appeals, which is certainly well tested in London.

We have a good system that has been in legislation for just about eight years. We have a good appeals system and a waste collection system that works. What exactly are the Minister and his colleagues trying to fix with this legislation?

Deregulation Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that we are now discussing two groups of amendments together, and not, as stated on the groupings list, simply Amendment 47, which relates solely to major sporting and entertainment events. It is helpful to be able to discuss the whole issue at the same time. I support my noble friend Lady Hanham; as she said, Amendments 49ZA, 49C, 50A and 51 have my name on them, and we have worked together on this issue for what feels like a very long time. Indeed, it has been a very long time.

I express many thanks to Onefinestay, the short lets company, which has been very helpful and willing to come and discuss issues, to London Councils, which my noble friend Lady Hanham has mentioned, and particularly to Westminster City Council. I have had a lot of contact with Westminster. It is the London authority with the most experience—even greater than that of the Royal Borough of Camden—of the effects of the huge growth in this market. Indeed, it has a team entirely devoted to the enforcement of the legislation on short lets.

I particularly want to put on the record my grateful thanks, and those of my colleagues, to the Covent Garden Community Association, which contacted me shortly before we discussed this matter in Grand Committee; indeed, I referred to what it had to say when I spoke there. Since then we have been closely engaged, and it has worked hard to liaise with other community associations and amenity societies in central London. I am grateful to the Covent Garden Community Association for its interest—perhaps it is self-interest, but it is understandable self-interest—for the work that it has done, and because it has brought home to me and to others the effects of what is happening here on people who live every day with the situation.

This is not the happy situation that the Government sometimes allude to, when somebody simply goes on holiday for a couple of weeks and lets their flat for a little bit of income. It is very big business. We have heard innumerable horror stories, both collectively, from the Covent Garden Community Association, and from a number of individuals who have contacted me—and, no doubt, other noble Lords—to describe their day-by-day experiences. There are short-term lets where no one knows who is there from day to day and the people who are there do not know what the rules of engagement are, or how they should be living, and all the dangers that go with that.

My noble friend Lady Gardner has referred to the unsatisfactory way in which the Government have dealt with this situation, and I agree with her. As my noble friend said, the provision was introduced on Report in the other place; it was certainly in the Bill when it came to us for Second Reading. I expressed concern about it then—as long ago as 7 July. That is why lots of people on all sides started to contact me about it. We had a considerable debate about it in Grand Committee on 30 October, but still the Government were not clear about exactly what they were going to regulate.

My noble friend Lady Gardner said that she has consistently asked Ministers what will be in the regulations. On 8 December, in answer to one of her questions, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said:

“In order to provide greater certainty before new legislation comes into force, we will issue guidance shortly that will clarify the Government’s view on planning and short-term letting in London”.—[Official Report, 8/12/14; col. 1593.]

That was on 8 December. Your Lordships know that the word “shortly” can mean many things in this House, but I am certain that on 8 December the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, did not believe that we would have to wait until 6 February, just a few days before we had to deal with this on the last day of Report, before we had any indication from the Government of their intentions.

Why does this matter? It matters because the clause as it stands simply gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. However, it gives no indication of what may or may not be in those regulations. It is, in effect, a blank cheque. If those regulations were to be made by the current Government—as, presumably, was the intention when we had Second Reading back on 7 July, or even in Grand Committee on 30 October—that would be all well and good. However, for whatever reason, we have now got to the stage where there is simply not enough time for those regulations to receive parliamentary approval before the general election. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will confirm that that is the case. The regulations clearly cannot be laid until Royal Assent is received, which I guess will probably be mid-March. They then have to lay for 40 sitting days, during which time they can be prayed against, before the approval, or otherwise, of each House of Parliament can be obtained. There simply are not 40 sitting days left to achieve that.

I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is this Government’s intention to lay the regulations immediately on Royal Assent before Dissolution, so that we at least know at last what the Government will, or will not, put in the regulations; or are we simply being asked to hand a blank cheque to whomever may form the next Government, and whomever may then be the Secretary of State, to do with as they wish? That could not be a much more unsatisfactory situation for anybody, whatever their view and whomever forms the next Government. Why we have taken nine months to get to this position, I do not understand. I do not envy the Minister having to try to explain it because I know that, whoever’s fault this is, it is most certainly not his. I thank him for trying very hard indeed to get some clarity on this. I suspect that had it not been for his very considerable efforts last week, we would not even have seen the policy guidelines last Friday.

We are now where we are. My noble friend Lady Hanham outlined the amendments we have tabled to suggest what should and should not be in the regulations. They have been drafted to reflect our views but with help from London Councils representing all the London boroughs, and most particularly following not daily but hourly discussion with Westminster City Council.

In short, the amendments want five safeguards to be built into the system. First, the premises must be the principal London residence of the owner offering the let. We seek a definition of “principal residence” and “owner”. Secondly, the owner must notify the council and let it know how long the stay will be. That means having a simple—we stress that word—and easy-to-use registration system. Otherwise, local authorities will have no possible way of enforcing whatever the regulations may state. Thirdly, the total lets in any one calendar year should not be more than 30 days. If we are talking about people being able to let their home for short periods while they go on holiday, 30 days in a year is not an unreasonable holiday entitlement. Fourthly, the council can request the Government to provide for local exemption from these provisions where there is a strong amenity case to do so. Finally, residents would not be allowed to continue letting if they were the subject of one successful enforcement action against a statutory nuisance. Our amendment defines the process for determining a statutory nuisance. I think I am right in saying that the Government intend to introduce those last two conditions; I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the case.

Amendment 51 seeks to leave out Clause 33 entirely. When this issue was innocently put into the Bill on Report in the Commons last summer, I am certain that Ministers—and, I suspect, their officials as well—had no idea of its scale and complexity; I am sure that the Minister will not confirm that. It has been brought home to all of us who have dealt with it over the months that it is a very difficult and complex issue, and is one that is growing and spreading rapidly. At the moment, it principally affects a number of central London boroughs. This issue relates only to London because it relates to a London local authorities Act. However, the concerns and issues arising from short-term lets are spreading across the country. Popular visitor areas are already experiencing difficulties, perhaps not on the scale of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden, but demand is growing so fast in this country and throughout the world that it can only be a matter of time before that is the case elsewhere. So this is clearly an issue that the Government have to tackle. They have to tackle it particularly in London for the reasons that we have given, but I suggest that they need to look at it in relation to the country as a whole.

We have got to the stage where we are being asked to give a blank cheque to the next Government to determine whatever they may or may not wish to put in regulations. As we are where we are, I urge the Government to say, “Right, we have got to this stage, and we really need to pause and have a careful think about all this”. Above all, we need to consult the companies working with short lets which are not against regulation but clearly have a rather different view from those who have to enforce the regulations. However, they should all be consulted. The leader of Westminster City Council issued a public letter dated 3 February—last week—in which she clearly says:

“There has been no engagement with this local authority either at a political or an officer level on the detail of the regulations that are intended to follow this Bill”.

Those were the words of the leader of Westminster City Council in a letter to Ministers last week—I repeat, last week.

Therefore, much though I regret that we have reached this situation, the best thing would be for the Government to concede and say, “We will withdraw this clause, consider further and consult fully, and we or whomever the next Government are will come back after the election with carefully considered, thought-out and consulted-upon regulations that properly tackle the issue”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I have added my support to all the amendments in this group. The anomaly between the treatment of zig-zag lines at school gates and those by pedestrian crossings is ridiculous. Both involve strong safety issues, and the Government should be able to see their way to including pedestrian crossings, at the very least. They also need to review the regulations about the amount of land taken up as a result of a school entrance. That aspect does not make sense; the amount is far too little compared with what is there at present. That is a technical matter that needs rearranging. The rest of the amendments all seem good common sense. I want to get rid of CCTV, but we cannot get rid of it completely if that will cause a safety hazard.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I too have added my name to these amendments, and I am sorry that the hour of the night that we have reached does not encourage us to give them the full debate that they deserve. I too am looking forward to the Minister’s explanation of why it is necessary to have CCTV enforcement on zig-zag lines outside schools, but apparently not on zig-zag lines by pedestrian crossings. I hope that he will say that the Government recognise that that is rather silly and, as they cannot find a sensible answer to the question why they are doing it, that there will be CCTV enforcement on zig-zag lines by pedestrian crossings.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will recall the debate—if that is the right word—that we had in Grand Committee, when we had only just received the draft regulations. I think that we all, including the Minister who replied on that day, recognised that the problem outside schools is rather more on the roads adjoining the zig-zag lines. I do not understand why the Government seem unwilling to allow CCTV enforcement on yellow lines adjacent to zig-zag lines outside schools, where there really is a problem. I would like to see a Minister go to a school in my former ward and explain to the people there that the rules cannot be enforced by CCTV on the yellow line, but can be on the zig-zag line. I remember my ward fondly, and I am certain of the answer that both the residents and the parents would give that Minister if he were brave enough, or stupid enough, to go and offer that explanation.

Amendment 56, to which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has referred, deals with impact assessments. As he said, the LGA wants clarification of the grounds on which an EIA—equalities impact assessment—is not to be done, because it understands that one is required under equalities legislation. The noble Lord also mentioned regulatory impact assessments. As he said, the Government say that they have not produced one because they do not believe that their proposals would impact business.

However, I have in my hand a letter addressed to Eric Pickles, dated 30 January, from 11 companies that say that,

“these proposals DO directly affect our business and as such the government should conduct a Regulatory Impact Assessment in accordance with its own procedures”.

Some of those 11 companies are recognised as major companies in the parking industry, and they all say that this will have a significant impact on them, and call for a regulatory impact assessment. It is probably no small feat to get 11 companies all to affix their signatures to a letter, and we all look forward to the Government’s reply to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I rise at 10.05 pm to move the amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who moved it for me in Committee, when I was unable to be present, and to all other noble Lords who spoke in favour of it then. It would introduce a general prohibition on pavement parking outside Greater London, where this has been the rule since 1974, with a power for local authorities to make exemptions on a street-by-street basis. After the noble Lord moved the amendment much more ably than I ever could, there is not a lot more to be said. It seems to be a no-brainer but, for the benefit of noble Lords who were not in Committee—there cannot be many of them left by now—I shall summarise the arguments briefly, given the lateness of the hour. That was not, I fear, a consideration that seemed to trouble many of the previous speakers, who have spoken unusually expansively for the time of night.

Five points need to be made. First, pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians, especially parents with pushchairs and prams, wheelchair users and other disabled people who are forced into the road in the face of oncoming traffic, which, in the case of blind and partially sighted people, they cannot even see.

Secondly, it is costly. Pavements are not designed to take the weight of vehicles, so they crack and the tarmac surface subsides in consequence. This is also a hazard to pedestrians, who may trip on broken pavements, especially if they cannot see what has happened. Local authorities spent more than £1 billion on repairing kerbs, pavements and walkways between 2006 and 2010. Some £106 million was also paid in meeting compensation claims from people tripping and falling on broken pavements during the same five-year period.

Thirdly, the present legal position is extremely confusing. Parking is regulated by local authorities issuing traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, prohibiting parking in specific areas. This has led to a patchwork of different approaches being taken by different local authorities, which is very confusing for motorists. We need the consistency of a standard regime throughout the country. Given the hazardous nature of pavement parking for pedestrians, and the fact that a general prohibition with local power to exempt seems to have worked well in Greater London, it seems sensible that this should be the rule that prevails throughout the country.

Fourthly, an amendment along these lines has massive support outside this Chamber. Some 69% of 2,552 adults in England, Scotland and Wales surveyed by YouGov in March 2014 supported a law on pavement parking, as do some 20 organisations, including those representing local government, pedestrians, motorists and transport interests generally, as well as disabled and elderly people. The status quo presents challenges for drivers as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The British Parking Association and the RAC Foundation support the call for change. Some 78% of local councillors believe that there should be a ban on pavement parking. It would be hard to think of any other amendment that united such a diversity of interests that are normally at loggerheads.

Finally, as I said, the regime that this amendment would introduce appears to have worked perfectly well in Greater London for more than 40 years.

In Committee, the main objection to the amendment seemed to be that it was better to leave the question of pavement parking to local discretion. However, I have already pointed out the huge objections to this in terms of cost and consistency. I think the Government’s objections were principally founded on the fear that the amendment would take away all local discretion, but this is not the case. All the amendment does is reverse the presumption as between national standard and local discretion.

The Minister expressed reservations about this on the grounds that introducing the new regime would be costly and disruptive. But, as I have argued, the present system is costly in terms of repair bills and legal costs. Traffic regulation orders cost between £1,000 and £3,000 to introduce, when account is taken of consultation, signage and advertising. A national law on pavement parking would give local authorities the discretion to act as they see fit in a more cost-effective way.

As I said, the case for the amendment is strong. I beg to move.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment with great pleasure. Indeed, as the noble Lord said, I moved it in Grand Committee in his unavoidable absence. I did that in particular because of the experience that I had for 40 years as a London borough councillor. As it happens, my council chose to start enforcing the ban in our area in my first year as leader of that council. The area that was most directly and strongly affected by that happened to be the town centre ward that I represented for those 40 years. Many of the properties in my ward were built before the motor car was invented, and certainly before it was ever envisaged that anybody living in the houses in those roads would ever own a car, let alone two cars. Many of the streets were too narrow to allow cars to pass in both directions without parked cars being on the pavement, so we had to deal with all the exemptions, many of them in the ward that I represented.

Therefore, I support the amendment, particularly for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Low, but also because, as a councillor, I have had many years’ experience of the implementation and enforcement of this ban. As the noble Lord made clear, it is not a blanket ban; it permits sensible exemptions that then have to be properly marked on the pavement and with a sign. Therefore, I support the ban enthusiastically. I know that it can work where there is a will, and I know that it has worked for many years in the area that I know best. We really should be moving to a situation where, just as in London, the presumption is that parking on pavements and verges is illegal unless it is specifically exempted. Motorists would then know that they should not park on a pavement, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Low, has given, unless it was clear that they were permitted to do so. That is the opposite of the presumption that exists in the country outside London at the moment, and it is an extremely important road safety and pedestrian safety measure that we should implement.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tope]

57A: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions
(1) Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement of traffic contraventions) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 87A, as inserted by section 39(3) of this Act, insert—
“87B Use of an approved device in car parks
Nothing in this Act shall prevent the use of an approved device in a car park which is the subject of a civil enforcement order where the intention of such use is to better manage space turnover and user convenience.””

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I will try to be brief. The same amendment was tabled in Grand Committee but did not really get any debate. I have brought it forward here at the request of the British Parking Association to have it on the record and to have the Government’s response on the record.

Local authorities, through the use of camera technology, including CCTV and automatic number plate recognition, want to provide new solutions for customers using their car parks. This includes an option either to operate barrier systems automatically by using ANPR and improve access for people with disabilities or to remove barriers altogether and improve traffic flows at these important locations. These systems can also better monitor space turnover, provide customers with more flexible payment opportunities, such as park now and pay later, and reduce the need for enforcement action.

This amendment would bring local authorities into line with other private sector car park providers, which are already using it, making it easier for all motorists to use any car park. ANPR technology, with its customer service benefits, such as pre-booking at airports for example, has been available for some years in private sector car parks and its use for enforcement action on private land, such as supermarkets and motorway service areas, was legitimised by the Government in their Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The British Parking Association understands that two of its local authority members are seeking a judicial review of the Government’s recent decision not to allow this new technology. The amendment would eliminate the need for such action by protecting motorists from any attempt by a “rogue” local authority, should there be such a thing, to use technology simply to raise revenue, as the conditions for use which it sets out must be to help space turnover or customer convenience.

We actively support the introduction of new technologies, including cameras and ANPR, when managing parking in regulated car parks. The Government themselves have a “digital by default” policy and new technologies and innovation are opening up significant opportunities for customer services and other improvements for motorists in the way parking services are managed and provided. This amendment would put publicly owned car parks on the same basis as privately owned car parks. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I should make it clear right from the outset that the measure in this Bill is about on-street parking, which is the preserve of local authorities. The issue of ANPR is totally separate and the Government are not going to regulate companies in a Bill that seeks to deregulate.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to introduce a new clause which would ensure that measures in the Traffic Management Act 2004 do not prevent local authorities from using an approved device in their off-street car parks. The amendment would apply to the entire Traffic Management Act. The Traffic Management Act sets out the framework for local traffic authorities to manage all aspects of their parking policies. To disapply the entire Act in relation to car parks would create an impossible situation where the legislation that prescribes how local authorities should operate is undermined by itself.

I think that the noble Lord may in fact be concerned about the specific measures in Clause 39 and is apprehensive that these will be extended to local authority off-street car parks. I can assure him again that the measures in this Bill apply only to on-street parking. The Government are not seeking to extend these provisions to off-street parking and have no plans to do so. It would be unnecessary to set out in primary legislation policy areas that the law should not apply to.

Permitting local authorities to manage their off-street car parks with camera technology is something that I know some organisations are keen to see happen. However, the Government have not set out their position on this. We have brought forward a range of parking measures designed to help local shops, support drivers and give communities a greater say on parking policies. These proposals have been established for 18 months and have been consulted on. At no point have we indicated any intention to legislate on off-street car parks.

To bring into the Bill at this late stage measures on a different aspect of parking policy would not give sufficient opportunity for people to consider their implications or to offer an opinion. We believe that this is something on which we should consult before any changes are made to the law, and I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tope]

Well, my Lords, I take it that that is a no. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his support, and who knows, in the months to come he may have an opportunity to indicate that.

I am rather disappointed with the reply from the Minister, who perhaps in part through her briefing has not wholly understood the points being made here. I note her point about the impact on businesses, but that did not seem to matter on the previous amendment when we actually had a letter from 11 businesses talking about the impact it would have on them. However, I will of course beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I will consider the issue further.

Amendment 57A withdrawn.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend and, in deference to my other noble friend sitting on the other side of me, I am sure that he did not mean to say that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea makes a profit from parking because it would, of course, be illegal. I am quite sure that it does not do that. I felt obliged to say that.

Before I speak to the amendment more fully, and with the permission of the Committee, I want to make a small correction to something I said in Grand Committee last Thursday—as I have been requested to do. In col. GC 452 of that Committee’s meeting, I said—or I am reported as saying—that the company, onefinestay, believed that regulation should apply to properties that are the “sole or main residence” of the owner. That is not the company’s policy, and I have agreed to put on record at the first opportunity that the position of onefinestay is that the regulation should apply to all residences, including primary and secondary residences, not simply to one sole or main residence. I have put that on record. I am certain that we will return to this subject at another date and I need say no more about that today.

I return to the thorny issue of parking. For 40 years, until last May, I represented a town centre ward in a London borough. Many, probably most, of the houses and streets in that ward were built before the motor car was invented. Pretty well all the houses there were built at a time when it was inconceivable that the people living in them would be able to afford to own and run a car, let alone two or more, in some cases. One of the consequences is that the basic problem now in what used to be my ward is that there is simply not enough road space to accommodate residents’ own cars, let alone all the other demands on the road space. As a reward for my long service on the council, during my last year there I was given political responsibility for implementing—and, I have to say, changing a little—parking policy. It encouraged me to accept retirement, and I fervently hoped last May that I would never, ever again have to deal with parking issues and parking problems. It follows that I am not entirely grateful to Mr Pickles for ensuring—sounding very much more like Friday night in the pub than anything I would hear on the streets—that I am here talking again about parking policy.

I want to make some fundamental points that I know are not widely perceived. Good parking services in most councils all over the country are there to work on behalf of the local residents and, in most cases, on behalf of motorists, too. I strongly believe that, although I understand only too well why there is a popular impression to the contrary. Having had to deal with the sort of problems that I described, I know from experience that good parking services may not provide the road space necessary to solve the problem but can go a long way to making life more tolerable for residents and manageable for non-residents who need to use those roads and streets.

As has been said—indeed, I began by saying it—local authorities are not allowed by law to make a profit from parking. With deference to my noble friend Lady Hanham, who is sitting next to me, most local authorities are unable to make the sort of income that Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea are able to make. Nor, indeed, do most councils have the sort of problems that those two authorities have to deal with. Most local authorities, including my former authority, do not make a substantial profit—or income; I shall get myself into trouble—out of parking services by the time they have covered all the expenses that are necessary. Such surplus income as may arise is, and has to be, used for transport-related actions. That is important to understand.

We come now to this clause. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made reference to the Government’s consultation on local authority parking policies which took place at the very end of last year and the early part of this year. I think I am right in saying that eight organisations, as distinct from individuals, responded to that. Six of those eight were totally opposed to the Government’s proposals. The two that were not opposed—the motoring organisations—also did not fully support the Government’s proposals, which makes me even more concerned about why the Government—my Government—are still insisting on going ahead with this measure.

As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has just said, if anything should be the responsibility of a local authority, it should surely be parking services. The local authority, and those elected to represent the local residents, best know the local circumstances and the local conditions, which vary not just from authority to authority but, frankly, from area to area, even from street to street. It is they who are in a position to determine what should and should not be done in implementing parking policy in a local authority area. Given my 40 years’ experience, I wonder why the Government are so foolish as to want to enter this minefield. For that reason, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw put down the proposal that this clause should not stand part of the Bill—that is, to delete the clause altogether. Frankly, I still think that would be the best thing that could happen. If the Government are minded to go ahead with the clause, I certainly accept that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would go some way to mitigate it. Therefore, if that is the case, I would largely support those amendments, but I still believe that it is better to leave this matter to local authorities, whose job it is to deal with it.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also said that yesterday afternoon we received a copy of the draft regulations from the Minister. I am very grateful for that and am pleased that we received it in time for this meeting, although I am sure that the Minister and noble Lords will understand that I certainly have not had time in the intervening 24 hours to have a detailed look at it or even to consult those who know far more about it than I do. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong on this because I want to be wrong, but, from my first impression, it looks to me as if the draft regulations would allow CCTV enforcement of a school clearway—the zig-zag lines—but not elsewhere. In other words, you can use a camera to enforce penalties with regard to the 10 yards round a school clearway but not a little further down the street. From my experience as a councillor with a number of primary schools located in streets such as I have described, that is simply ludicrous. Cars park all the way down the road. The residents want to have enforcement to stop cars doing that or to deal with car drivers who park inconsiderately and foolishly all the way down the road. However, if these regulations were enforced, and if I am correct—as I say, I hope that I am not—we are going to be in a position of having to tell those residents who want the local authority to enforce them, “I am sorry, we can enforce them for only 10 yards. We can’t enforce them down the rest of the road”. I am no longer a councillor, thank goodness, but I invite the Minister to explain to some of my former constituents why the regulations can be enforced for 10 yards but not for the rest of the road. That is just one point that occurs to me, which I hope the Minister will tell me I am wrong about. However, I fear that I may not be.

This illustrates the danger in the Government interfering with all this. The local authorities best know how to deal with this issue and most of them do so well. Of course, mistakes are made and silly things happen sometimes; they should not, but they do. However, we now have a very good appeals system that works fairly. Nobody has suggested that there is anything significantly wrong with that. Why do we not leave the situation as it is? For all these reasons and many more, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and I wish to give the Government the opportunity to think again and not to enter what I assure them is a minefield and an area where they simply will not win, and to leave it to the local authorities which best know their own areas to carry on dealing with the things that they have had to deal with for many years.

[Baroness Hanham (Con)]

My Lords, I have been mentioned a couple of times by my noble friend beside me, and I am very grateful to him for explaining the policies of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea on the use of parking moneys, and why our roads are so beautifully kept. I remind the Committee at this stage of my co-presidency of London Councils and my former membership of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for the fact that I was rushing down from a Select Committee and was about three minutes late for the start of the debate.

I support what has been said about this being a local authority matter. If anybody who has been involved in local government knows anything about it, there are two things that really irritate residents. The first is planning and the second is parking. How parking is controlled and enforced is totally a matter for local authorities. Noble Lords know as well as I do that Westminster City Council has completely different parking regulations to those in Kensington and Chelsea. They were very difficult to cope with to start with, but everybody has not got used to the fact that you cannot just totally rely on the same things. They have different rules of enforcement, too. Kensington and Chelsea does not employ cameras for parking enforcement, while other councils do. Whose choice is it that that should happen? Why is not that the choice of the borough—how it enforces it? If you do not have cameras, you have to put people on the streets. I came across two today, and one was on a scooter with his little yellow hat on, while one was on his bike with his little yellow hat on. They were running up and down the road. You have to have a bigger army of those to keep up enforcement if you cannot use cameras.

Where is the mischief that has brought about this proposal? Who has been complaining about cameras for parking enforcement? Cameras are used for all sorts of things in our streets, some of them extremely helpful. Some cameras catch criminals and help to protect people who are walking up and down the street. Some provide for the traffic flows. It is very annoying being caught by a camera. I can declare that I was caught by one while sitting at a box junction a little while ago. I did not know that there was a camera there, and I was a bit stuck. I got a traffic fine, and rightly so, because what I was doing was against the law. I was not doing what the law said and hoping that I would get away with it, but I did not. That is because I was breaking the law, and when people go against the law on parking arrangements brought in by local councils, which decide on the parking restrictions, it is up to the local authority to enforce it themselves. That is particularly essential for major cities, where there are really tight areas for parking, as well as in small county towns, which are different to anywhere else.

My former position as a Minister in the DCLG leaves me in no other position than to say that I do not know at all why the department has set off down this road, and it would be a frightfully good thing if it got away from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his amendment, and all who spoke in this debate. I think the word “minefield” was used by one of my noble friends; there may be some more extreme language.

I will explain why Clause 38 is, in the Government’s view, important. New Section 78A to be inserted in the Traffic Management Act 2004 will allow for regulations to be made, the effect of which will prevent local authorities from issuing parking tickets in the post based solely on the evidence of CCTV cameras. Once the regulations are in place, traffic wardens will need either to affix tickets physically to the vehicle, or hand the ticket to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle, so that drivers are made aware of an alleged parking contravention at the time. This might be an appropriate time to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about what the phrase,

“begun to prepare a ticket”,

means. My understanding is that it is the point at which the traffic warden begins to prepare the ticket in a physical sense. I hope that that is helpful; that is my understanding of the matter.

The Government accept that sole reliance on CCTV evidence in enforcing on-street parking regulations is suitable in certain circumstances, and will therefore set out in secondary legislation four exemptions where CCTV will continue to be used: bus lanes, bus stops, red routes and around schools. My noble friend Lord Tope mentioned this in particular about schools. I can well understand this because I have had direct experience of it in the past 10 days. Noble Lords of a political persuasion may have gone down to Rochester. I was there in a street that had a school, and one of the issues that was raised was parking.

The description in the draft regulations of what constitutes “around schools” follows that used elsewhere in DfT legislation. There is nothing to prevent local authorities using traffic wardens to enforce in other areas. I should, however, like to look into that in a little bit more detail.

[Lord Tope]

I should be grateful if my noble friend would look into it. With deference to my noble friend the former leader of Kensington and Chelsea, most local authorities do not have the income from parking that enables them to employ large numbers—I think she referred to armies—of traffic enforcement officers. It is simply not practical to put civil enforcement officers—I think that they are called parking attendants now—outside every primary school throughout that local authority area where there is a parking problem. I am sorry to say that the Minister confirmed my understanding from a quick read of the regulations, that a camera can be used for 10 yards outside the school but if you go further than 10 yards you have got to employ a human being at consequent cost for enforcement. That simply will not happen in most areas. There is neither the money nor the demand to do it. Frankly, it is ludicrous.

Therefore I thank the Minister for his willingness—even, I suspect, his enthusiasm—to look into this and to have it resolved before we get to the next stage of the Bill. I am not sure that he has already noted that by far the strongest opposition to this clause has come from his own side.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am fast becoming aware of that. I do not want to provoke my noble friends, but since local authorities took on responsibility for parking enforcement the income from parking has gone up significantly. Local authority surpluses from parking income have more than doubled from £223 million to £512 million between 1997 and 2010. There are obviously some local authorities that are increasing surpluses—clearly not the local authorities with which my noble friends have been associated or which they may know. I pass those figures on as a matter of record.

The Government believe that these proposals are necessary as a matter of principle. People should be able to see what they are accused of when they return to their vehicle, so that they have the opportunity to examine the area for themselves. It is not reasonable for drivers to receive a ticket in the post up to two weeks after the incident has taken place.

The Government also believe that some local authorities are ignoring operational guidance and using CCTVs in areas in which they should not do so. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal told the Transport Select Committee that adjudicators have found cases where camera enforcement is used as a matter of routine where the strict requirements for use in the guidance do not appear to be present. By bringing forward this legislation the Government are seeking to ensure that parking practices are fairer for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I do not at all dispute the adjudication figures. I probably used the same briefing as the noble Lord. We have a common understanding of the data and the Government have more to do in justifying what they are doing here.

The issue around schools is clearly very important. The point has been well made that it is nonsense to say that TV cameras will be able to be used along a very short stretch of road. Our amendment would widen or retain the opportunity to use CCTV in those circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked who was complaining about parking charges. I hesitate to say, but she might wish to take a taxi ride in Luton and it will not be long before she gets someone bending her ear about parking charges and enforcement. I suspect that that situation is not unique to where I live.

There is a localism argument in all this, although I know that depending on where people are on a proposition, they either grasp the localism mantra or they do not. We debated something just last week when those who are now on the localist wing were arguing for a very much centralist approach. We have all probably been on one side of that issue or another.

The Minister said that I was trying to introduce a new clause related to off-street parking enforcement; was that the point he was making? The point about Amendment 61G, which was suggested to us by the LGA, related to the opportunity for local authority car parks to have the benefit of the same use of technology as private car parks so that it can be used to improve management of those car parks—to enable people to park and pay afterwards, for example. Those are the sort of arrangements that make more efficient use of car parks—as I said, the Department of Health hospital trusts are encouraging that—which was the purpose of my clause. Perhaps the Minister might reflect on that.

My noble friend Lord Rooker, as ever, made a challenging point, in this case about the difference between somebody getting done for speeding on a motorway and somebody getting a parking ticket when they are stationary. These provisions apply only for stationary vehicles—for obvious reasons which the Minister I think dealt with. If people are motoring at 40, 50 or 60 miles an hour, you need some form of evidence to be able to justify a penalty, and CCTV is the obvious option. I do not think that the Government, to be fair to them, are seeking to change that in these regulations. But where I challenge the Government, and where I would certainly align myself with most of the Benches opposite, is that I do not think the Government have justified the very narrow use of CCTV that would result from this clause. At the very least it should be widened to cover all of those areas focused on safety, for example bus usage and the efficiency of the bus service. What they are doing is very restrictive and, I believe, unacceptable. One way or another, it needs to change.

[Lord Tope]

I do not think the noble Lord has quite withdrawn his amendment yet. Before he does so, I could perhaps help with Amendment 61G—which I certainly support—which refers to the use of an approved device in car parks. As I understand it, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provided for the use of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition in private car parks but did not do so for local authority car parks. If that is the case—I believe that it is, and that is the reason for the amendment—I do not understand the logic for it. Why is it permissible in a privately owned or managed car park but not in a local authority one? I suspect, or would like to believe, that that was simply an omission when the 2012 Act was passed and that this is the opportunity to correct it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support on that particular amendment. I do not believe we can get an answer this afternoon as to why that distinction was made when the provisions were introduced but it is certainly important that we get it. We will obviously need a lot of follow-up on this area of debate, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tope]

61H: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition of parking on verges, central reservations and footways
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 19 insert—
“19A Parking on a road anywhere other than on the carriageway
(1) A person who parks a vehicle wholly or partly—
(a) on the verge of an urban road,(b) on a footway comprised of an urban road, or(c) on any other part of an urban road other than on the carriageway,is guilty of a civil offence, subject to the provisions of subsection (3).(2) An offence under this section shall be treated as a traffic contravention for the purposes of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and regulations made under it.
(3) Subject to subsection (6), a highway authority may by resolution, or in the case of the Secretary of State by such notice as appears to him to be appropriate, authorise, from a date specified in the resolution or notice, the parking of vehicles on or over a footway or any part of a footway as referred to in subsection (1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any road within Greater London.
(5) In this section—
“carriageway” and “footway” have the same meanings as in the Highways Act 1980;
“urban road” means a road which—
(a) is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1980;(b) is subject to an order under section 84 of that Act imposing a speed limit not exceeding 40 miles per hour which is imposed by or under any local Act; or(c) is subject to a speed limit not exceeding 40 miles per hour which is imposed by or under any local Act;“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by, or to be attached to, a mechanically propelled vehicle but does not include a heavy commercial vehicle within the meaning of section 19 of this Act.
(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to any exemptions from the prohibition contained in subsection (1).
(3) The Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(4) In Schedule 7, after paragraph 4(2)(g) insert—
“(ga) an offence under section 19A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (parking on a road anywhere other than on the carriageway);”.”

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, although it is not shown here. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, is in another meeting in your Lordships’ House and is unable to be here today. He has asked me to move this amendment, which stands in his name, and I am of course very happy to do so; first, because I have some experience of the issue but secondly because the amendment repeats very closely the wording of the Private Member’s Bill introduced by my honourable friend Martin Horwood in the other place, which is supported by all parties including Plaid Cymru and the Greens. I am very pleased to be able to move it.

On the last amendment, I rehearsed at some length my experience of parking in a London borough and the nature of the ward that I represented in that borough. Coincidentally, the year of my election was the year that Greater London acquired the power to ban pavement parking—for simplicity’s sake in this discussion, I will simply refer to pavement parking, because that is the way it is most easily understood and that is what it is about. As a result, pavement parking has been illegal for some years now throughout Greater London except where a street is specifically exempted from that ban.

I believe, certainly, in my own borough—a number of roads in what used to be my ward had to be so exempted, or nobody would have moved in them—the exemptions are strictly controlled. Nearly all of the rest of the country is not in that fortunate position. Although Exeter and Worcester have bans, the rest do not. It is an inconsistent situation throughout the country. One of the purposes of the amendment and my honourable friend’s Private Member’s Bill is to deal with that inconsistency.

The need for the ban is, I am sure, obvious to all of us here, not just for consistency but because parking on pavements is extremely dangerous to many people: very obviously to people who are blind or partially sighted, to people who have a mobility difficulty whether they are using a wheelchair or not and to people pushing prams and pushchairs. Indeed, I would say that it is dangerous to every pedestrian who is forced into the road. That is the primary reason why we should now take this opportunity to introduce a pavement parking ban on a consistent basis throughout the rest of the country outside London, within which it already exists.

The campaign for a pavement parking ban has the support of 20 organisations: Guide Dogs for the blind, the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association, the Campaign for Better Transport, Age UK, Living Streets, the National Association of Local Councils, Whizz-Kidz, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Sense, Civic Voice, the Design Council, Keep Britain Tidy, Transport for All, the Thomas Pocklington Trust, the Macular Society, the Glass-House, the National Pensioners Convention, the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners and Deafblind UK. I hope that the Minister’s experience in trying to deal with Clause 38 just now would suggest to him that it might be as well to give in and accept the amendment, or one very like it, now.

The amendment is long overdue. The primary reason is what I have already said: the dangerous nature of parking on pavements for pedestrians; particularly for those I have described, but quite seriously for all pedestrians—although clearly much more so for some than for others. I have a local authority background; indeed, maybe I should declare again my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. Another reason is the cost of pavement parking. Parking on pavements breaks up the pavements, which are not built or designed to have people parking on them. It adds a considerable cost to local authorities having to repair them. Increasingly, I am sorry to say, budget restraints mean that those pavements do not get repaired, so even walking on the pavement can now be quite difficult and dangerous.

This campaign is supported by the overwhelming majority of local authorities for the reasons I have said and the need to get consistency. Current laws and practice around the country are simply not consistent. We therefore need a new law, long overdue, that, although it is quite a complex issue, makes it clear in simple terms that parking on pavements is not just wrong—it is, or should be, illegal. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I do not want to argue with my noble friend about which of us is the greater localist. We have known each other for more than 40 years. I thought that I made clear that it would obviously have to be the case, as it is in London, that where necessary and appropriate, and as decided by the local authority, the pavement concerned could be exempted from that ban. It is clearly not just desirable but essential.

If the amendment were approved, it would simply change the situation now, where parking on pavements is okay unless it has been stopped, to the reverse situation where it is not okay unless the local authority has specifically exempted it. My noble friend used the example in the previous debate of a vehicle travelling at 60 miles an hour down the motorway. Maybe we should not talk about motorways but is he seriously suggesting that local authorities alone should decide which area has a speed restriction and that the situation in the country should be that there are no speed restrictions in place unless the local authority chooses to impose one? That would be anarchy and simply would not work. We are going to have a dialogue if we are not careful.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I do not intend to have any dialogue at all, but I would just point out that it is the local authority that decides where a 30 mile an hour limit should be. Many of them overdo it and that is a pity, but I put up with that. It is their right. I am merely saying that I do not think that the clause as drafted would have the most local effect. I would prefer the clause to give powers. I want powers to be given and then people can make up their own minds. That is not what this clause does and I am sure that it could be done in such a way as to satisfy both of us. There is not much point in us having a dialogue, but can we please have a local solution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, as we are in Grand Committee, the rules ensure that I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment, which I will of course do in a moment. I am grateful to the Minister for expressing sympathy and understanding, but what the 20 organisations and thousands and thousands of other parties—including a majority of councils and councillors—are looking for is not sympathy but action.

I accept entirely that it is complex but I just remind noble Lords that it was introduced in Greater London in 1974—coincidentally, the year in which I first became a councillor for the ward that I have already described, which has a number of streets that have to be exempted from the ban for practical and physical reasons. When a road or pavement is exempted, it is marked accordingly on the pavement and with a prescribed street sign, so that everybody knows that it is exempted and the extent of the exemption. The important point that we are trying to get across here is that in Greater London parking on pavements is illegal unless exempted, and that should be the situation in the rest of the country. People will then know where they stand: it will be illegal unless there is a sign and marking on the pavement that says it has been exempted. The local authority will deal with those exemptions and will have drawn up and published criteria for dealing with them, so it will be publicised in that way.

I do not want to provoke him again by saying this, but I do not think that my noble friend Lord Deben and I are that far apart. All I would say is that we have over 40 years of experience and practice in dealing with these issues in Greater London, which is arguably one of most densely populated urban areas in the country, and it works reasonably well. There is always an issue of enforcement, but there is something there to enforce. So what I and, in particular, the supporters and campaigners on this issue seek from the Government is rather more than sympathy or understanding, or leaving the situation, which is widely recognised as cumbersome and inadequate, as it is. We are looking for them to actually take action and to say to people that parking on pavements is illegal unless it is exempted.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

Would the noble Lord not agree that it is pretty clear in the Highway Code that you do not park on the pavement? As I understand this legislation, with the new Highway Code you had better ring up your council to see whether you can park on the pavement.

[Lord Tope]

It is certainly in the Highway Code and is certainly good practice, but it is not illegal outside London. That is the point that we are making. I am sure that we will return to this debate, both on this Bill and when my honourable friend gets the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill, but in the mean time I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 61H withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tope]

62A: Clause 43, leave out Clause 43 and insert the following new Clause—
“Household waste: reduction in statutory penalty
(1) Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (receptacle for household waste) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6), for “3” substitute “1”.”

[Lord Tope]

I rise to move Amendment 62A and will speak more generally to oppose the clause—indeed, the first part of the amendment has exactly that effect, as it would delete the clause.

Earlier this afternoon we had a pretty lively debate demonstrating why parking enforcement is best left to local authorities. It is a pretty fundamental rule among any councillors who have any experience in local government that you do not mess around with refuse collection or waste collection within a year of an election. Any councillor, particularly any councillor who has served for any time, would tell you: never mess with refuse collection within a year of an election, yet here we have a clause in which the Government are seeking fundamentally to interfere with refuse collection within a few months of a general election. My mission this afternoon is to save the Government from themselves, and I hope the Minister will feel able to help me with this.

The first question I have to ask is: why are the Government doing this? Local authorities generally have a pretty good record, not just on refuse collection but particularly on recycling. There is a long way to go but the rate has increased to 43%, I think, which is very near to quadrupling in the past decade. Perhaps there will be an incentive with the landfill tax, but the amount of waste going to landfill has reduced by 70% in the past decade. Yes, more needs to be done but it is not a bad record to start with, so there is no problem there.

There is no evidence as far as I am aware that local authorities, either genuinely or particularly, have been acting disproportionately in the way in which they enforce their collection regimes. If there is evidence of that, I am sure the Minister will give it to us, but I would still need to know that that evidence is so overwhelming and strong that it requires legislation from central government to interfere in this service. If you ask most residents what they pay their council tax for, after their initial rude remarks, the one thing that most residents everywhere say is that they pay their council taxes for their refuse collection. That is one of the few services these days that local authorities have to provide to all residents, so where is the evidence?

The Government consulted on these proposals and I hope the Minister will confirm that most of the responses to the consultation said, in effect, “Leave it alone and do not decriminalise this”, so where is the evidence? Why are the Government taking the frankly rather risky and unnecessary step of interfering in local authorities’ business for waste collection?

The effect of the clause will remove the power of local authorities to prescribe their refuse collections arrangements. It will reduce the fine for an offence from the current £1,000, which is a penalty few wish to incur, to a civil penalty of £60. I return to our earlier discussion about parking, when I said that the penalty imposed was nowhere near the same sort of deterrent. As a former leader of a council that had an extremely good record on recycling I must say straightaway that I strongly prefer incentives to threats. My local authority never had to use those threats. But those threats are necessary as a deterrent.

Why do the Government want to do this? I referred to the proposals on parking as something more suited to Friday night in the pub. I suggest that this, too, properly belongs in a pub on a Friday night—from a Daily Mail reader rather than from anyone who actually has any knowledge of refuse collection services and of the drive to increase recycling rates. It probably belongs in the pub on a Friday night, not in a Bill brought forward by my Government and still less in a Bill brought forward by my Government within months of facing a general election.

This measure is in a Deregulation Bill. It does not deregulate: it removes a system that seems to be working reasonably well—I have not seen the evidence that is not working reasonably well—and substitutes that for a far more difficult and complex situation that nobody is going to understand. It is going to cost local authorities a great deal more to implement and enforce. I simply do not know why the Government want to do this.

If the Government press ahead with this—I hope that we will all be able to persuade them to think again—the Local Government Association believes that if it has to happen the current level of fine of £1,000 should be reduced to a level 1 fine of £200. I would prefer us to leave things as they are. I believe that they are working well and all the evidence suggests that they are working well. Most importantly of all, waste collection arrangements are the business of local authorities and not the business of central government. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Baroness. At this point I may be better off writing to her to explain in detail. My note says that the Secretary of State will make the regulations, but I recognise that there is a degree of ambiguity there. We will make sure that we clarify that.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am of course, as always, grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham. I was going to say “for her support”, but who is supporting who? We are as one on this. I have just said to her that it is good to have her back onside. I always knew what she really thought, because we have known each other for so long. Now, at last, she can say it.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response and, indeed, whether he meant to or not, for confirming that we have this clause as the result of a “press campaign”—those were the words that he used—not because there is any evidence that vast numbers of innocent householders are being persecuted and prosecuted for their innocent mistakes. If that has ever happened, it is certainly not the norm. It certainly does not happen to the extent that requires this sort of heavy-handed additional regulation.

Reference has been made to different systems in different areas. In passing, most people only live in one local authority area, and it is not of much concern to most people what happens in other areas because they never experience it—unless they happen to live in two, three or more homes. Having said that, I entirely agree that greater harmonisation and simplification between local authorities in their collection arrangements, particularly for recycling, would be extremely helpful, however many homes one happens to live in. That is a job for the local authorities and the Local Government Association. It is not a job in which central government needs to intervene or is able to usefully add anything to what local authorities can do.

I said in my opening remarks—because I have always believed it very strongly—that I too believe in supporting recycling, not threatening it, and giving incentives for recycling. That was something that my council started to do the day when I became leader of it, as it happens. However, I have also said that you need to be able to back that up with a threat or disincentive. You will hope that it is never needed; if your incentives are working well and properly, that threat will never need to be used, but it needs to be there as a back-up. I am at one with the Government in wishing to incentivise rather than threaten, but not with them on the wish effectively to withdraw any meaningful threat.

The Minister says that he hopes that I will withdraw the amendment. He knows very well that the rules require that I do so. I have no choice but to beg leave to withdraw it, but I feel sure somehow that we will return to the issue of waste collection at a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment 62A withdrawn.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Grand Committee

I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurances, because good progress has been made in achieving higher standards and setting them out clearly, by getting rid of a plethora of currently very varied standards. However, if this is a dumbing-down and it will be possible to wriggle out of the requirement which I know many local authorities want to put in place—that in all cases one can move to the middle tier of level 2 for accessibility—then it will have all been for nothing. This important exercise will not have been worth while.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I support with enthusiasm the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. He has moved his amendment with his customary thoroughness, leaving little more to be said, but I look forward very much to hearing the reassurances that I am sure the Minister will give us in a few moments.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, rightly stressed the importance of standards: in this case, the importance of maintaining the good work that has been done in many areas, not least in London, in building to lifetime homes standards. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that it is not the intention—it would be remarkable if he told us that it was—to reduce these standards. What I want is reassurance on how confident he is that there will not be unintended consequences. That is the fear not just from Leonard Cheshire Disability, which the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned and from which we have had some briefing, but from other organisations for which this is important.

It has been a long and quite a hard battle at times for local authorities and others to improve standards from the periods in the 1960s and 1970s when they virtually disappeared altogether. There is much greater recognition now of the importance of designing for accessibility for the future as well as the present. We are nowhere near meeting the demand that already exists, never mind the future demand that the noble Lord, Lord Best, apparently envisages for himself and for the rest of us. If the unintended consequence of subsection (4) of Clause 32 is such as to weaken or even remove that drive, I hope that the Government will consider further and perhaps feel that that subsection is not necessary to that clause. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that there will not be any unintended consequences and, not least, that there are no intended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who tabled his amendments yesterday, thereby giving him the onerous task of explaining what this debate is all about.

During this Grand Committee, I have heard from London Councils that, while it regards the noble Lord’s amendments as moving in the right direction, it still prefers to go for the deletion of the clause as a whole. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—who unfortunately is in China on business today, leaving the task to me—and I have therefore given notice of our intention to oppose the clause standing part so as to enable a full and proper debate on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, the issue is contentious—I think that he used that word. It is certainly controversial in London, where it is a growing issue.

We have received objections from London Councils. The Local Government Association, of which, I should perhaps mention, I am a vice-president, rightly sees this as a London issue, as it is relevant to the Greater London powers Act, and is therefore leaving it with London Councils. We have received representations from Westminster City Council, which understandably is probably the local authority in London most affected by these issues—although it is by no means the only one—from the Covent Garden Community Association, the British Hospitality Association, the Bed and Breakfast Association, Whitbread, which runs Premier Inn and Costa coffee, and a number of individuals who are personally affected.

That leads me to ask the Minister the following. Specifically, whom did the Government consult before deciding to insert this clause? When did they do that consultation? What was the response and has it been published? It may well be that I have missed it. Given the body of opinion that is outright opposed to this clause, one wonders what led the Government to go along with it. I should say, and will say again later, that since tabling what is effectively our intention to delete the clause we have received a number of representations which are not wholly in support of the clause but perhaps rather more positive towards it. I will try to deal with those as well, because we want to have a full debate on the issue.

It is easy to think that this is a provision that was put into a 1973 Act—coincidentally, that happened to be my one year as a London MP, so I remember these things reasonably well—and that since then, times have changed. Yes, of course they have. The internet has been invented and businesses are now doing a very good job with something that could not have existed then. However, something else has changed since 1973: the housing crisis in London is now even worse than it was at that time. I looked at the Explanatory Notes to understand more fully the Government’s thinking on this. Paragraph 193 states:

“The purpose behind the provision”—

that is, the original 1973 provision—

“was to protect London’s existing housing supply, for the benefit of permanent residents, by giving London boroughs greater and easier means of planning control to prevent the conversion of family homes into short term lets”.

The only thing that has changed since is that that is even more necessary now than it was then. Therefore, I contend that the purpose is still there, although the means of achieving it is open to debate.

London Councils, which represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, tells us that Westminster City Council has estimated that 3,000 properties in its borough are being used for short-term accommodation. In Camden, 923 flats are being offered by just one short-term let business, a rise of 37% in just over three months. On that scale, it is not simply people who want to offer their home for someone to live in while they go away, perhaps for a long holiday, in order to help finance that holiday. This is a business.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I very much echo the closing comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I begin by declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. That is quite a substantial interest for this Bill because local authorities are the regulatory authority responsible for implementing many of these and other regulations. They have people with the detailed knowledge and experience on the ground of how well the regulations work or, as it quite often the case, how they do not work. Therefore, it is a significant interest and I suspect that it is going to take up a considerable amount of time in the months ahead.

Until May this year, I also had the huge pleasure of serving as a representative of European Union regional and local government on a European Commission body with the rather grand title of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens. It was intended to deal with the never-ending task of trying to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed by the European Union. I learnt quite a lot of things there but I learnt two in particular as we went from, first, the Better Regulation programme to Smart Regulation and, in my closing months, to Regulatory Fitness, known as REFIT. First, I learnt that, as the Minister said in his introduction, better regulation most certainly does not mean no regulation; it means appropriate regulation that is fit for purpose—and a purpose that is both necessary and proportionate. The other thing that I learnt was that somewhere there was always someone who thought that those regulations were necessary. Those people are still there and they still think that the regulations are necessary. There is always a reason for having regulations and there are always some people who think that they are good and necessary.

In the time available, I simply want to highlight just one or two causes of concern in the Bill. Overall, I certainly join my noble friend Lord Stoneham in welcoming the Bill. I know from my work in Brussels that the Red Tape Challenge—one in, one out and, even more particularly, the one-in, two-out process of the UK Government—was very much admired in the European Union. We spoke on it quite often and had presentations from the UK Government on its effectiveness. There were even attempts to try to introduce it to the European Commission, which was sometimes just a little less enthusiastic in its support.

I come from the point of view of welcoming the direction and intention of this Bill—there are many parts that we will certainly welcome—but, inevitably in debate and in Committee, we talk about those things on which we are less happy and rather more concerned. The ones that I particularly want to highlight in the few minutes available today start with Clauses 9, 10 and 11 and concerns over private hire measures. Here, I shall quote from a letter from the police and crime commissioner for Dorset to my honourable friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, who unfortunately received it just after the Bill left the House of Commons. The commissioner was alerted to the provisions by the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester and feels that,

“an unintended consequence of these measures is to potentially increase the risk of crime and incidents, such as serious assaults and thefts, following a night out”.

We can go into more detail on that in Committee, but he seeks support in lobbying for the removal of these clauses and,

“instead, for the introduction of a dedicated Taxi Bill along the lines proposed by the Law Commission. Their draft bill has been written after extensive research and consultation and would give the opportunity for much better scrutiny of major reforms of an important industry”.

I understand that it is now rather too late in this Parliament to be introducing such a substantive Bill as a draft taxi Bill, but I hope that the Minister will say in his reply why the Government have chosen not to do that and have instead introduced measures that at least two police and crime commissioners—and many others, I am sure—feel are deeply unsatisfactory and worrying.

The next clause about which I am concerned is Clause 34—I speak as one who, until May, had been a London councillor for 40 years—on the short-term use of London accommodation. I ask the Minister: who was consulted by the Government before they introduced that clause? I ask that in particular because the clause is opposed quite strongly by London Councils, the body representing all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. It is opposed quite strongly by Westminster City Council, arguably the one that will be most affected by these provisions. Reflecting on the financial incentives for engaging in short-term letting, it makes the point that in 2005 the rent that could be charged for a short-term let property was 273% higher than comparable rents for private sector rental properties. It is understandably very concerned about that. It is not only the London local authorities that are concerned about the provisions in this clause. I have had representations from the Bed and Breakfast Association and the British Hospitality Association. They are all concerned about the effect that this clause, if implemented as it stands, will have on the letting property market in London. This will need much more careful consideration in Committee.

In my last two minutes, I turn to two clauses that concern me: Clause 38 on parking and Clause 43 and Schedule 11 on waste collection. Anyone who has been a councillor for any length of time knows that the two subjects you never, ever touch within a year of an election are parking and waste collection. Why on earth are the Government interfering in these matters within a year of a general election? Despite that foolishness, I have to ask again about those two core activities—the core business of local authorities. Minister after Minister in all parties will say that it is local people who know best and that one size does not fit all. Why are the Government now trying to interfere and to regulate—never mind within a year of a general election—in these matters that are essential to local government?

My 40 years as a local councillor were spent representing a controlled parking zone in a town centre area vital to the local economy. We all know that one size does not fit all. That was in the London Borough of Sutton. It has a different regime from the Royal Borough of Kingston next door, or the London Borough of Croydon next door or indeed the London Borough of Wandsworth, which I know the Minister knows particularly well. Why are the Government interfering? What is the justification for this? We will go into it in very much more detail in Committee. However, as I think has been mentioned, the consultation from the Department for Transport on parking received a lot of responses, almost all of them hostile. On the issue of the CCTV ban, which this clause covers, six of the eight organisations responding—from the British Parking Association to cycling and disability groups—were strongly opposed to the Government’s proposed ban. Only two had a mixed reaction, one of which was from the motoring organisations, so even they were not unanimously agreed on the ban. We still do not know exactly what the exemptions are. It is difficult in this area to distinguish between what are actually government proposals and what has come from the Friday afternoon press release from the Secretary of State, preparatory presumably to his Friday evening in the pub, where most of these utterings seem rather better fitted than to legislation.

Waste collection again is causing considerable concern to local authorities, not least the likely increased cost and complexity of introducing these additional regulations. As has been said, this is a big deregulation Bill. I thought that the clue might be in the name. In fact we are proposing to introduce more regulation, which will make carrying out the essential task of waste collection more complex and more expensive. I know that my noble friend the Minister is, if anything, an even stronger localist than I am. I look forward in his closing speech to his justification for why these measures meet the test of proportionality and necessity.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Lord Tope Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, this amendment is designed to bring greater transparency to the relationships between local authorities and the private contractors to whom increasingly large amounts of public services are being contracted out. Billions of pounds are at stake in these contracts and the recent revelations about the electronic tagging work carried out by private sector firms for the Ministry of Justice are just the latest example for the case for greater transparency in these arrangements.

I moved a similar amendment at both Committee and Report, when I set out the merits of greater transparency in tackling fraud and corruption, incompetence and inefficiency and in terms of citizens’ rights to know about the services provided to them and the taxpayers’ right to know about the services they pay for. I do not need to detain your Lordships today by rehearsing those arguments again at length.

The Government appear to believe that there are already sufficient provisions for transparency for this amendment not to be necessary, but the fact that local authorities themselves are covered by the Freedom of Information Act does not always provide the necessary transparency for private sector bodies carrying out public sector work, as I argued at Committee and Report, nor does the right of electors to inspect accounts and audit documents, important though that right is and has been for the many years.

At the heart of the Government’s resistance appears to be a belief that transparency increases cost. I addressed this argument at length on Report, by analysing the Government’s figures, which suggest that such costs are likely to amount, if at all, to an increase in a tiny percentage of the sums involved. The Government have not, so far, questioned my calculations. I also pointed out that transparency can save money often by revealing fraud and corruption, incompetence and inefficiency. However, I recognise that Ministers fret about things which sometimes they do not always need to fret about and, in an attempt to set their minds at ease, I have made two changes that I hope will go some way towards meeting the Government’s concerns.

First, in this amendment, there is a provision for a review after five years to see whether the Government’s concerns about costs among other things are justified. Secondly, I have inserted “significant” into the amendment to make it clear that it is not intended to cover the provision of services by small businesses, nor the work of town and parish councils, as in those cases this amendment might be unnecessarily onerous. I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers might reconsider their position on greater transparency in this area and that these changes might encourage them to do so. I beg to move.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, Liberal Democrats campaigned hard for freedom of information long before the Act was passed and have since been consistent and enthusiastic supporters of its provisions. It follows therefore that we start with considerable sympathy for the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is pursuing. This is the first time I have spoken on his amendments and I am grateful to him for pursuing the issue at all stages of the Bill.

It is timely because we are now seeing in local government a significant and substantial change towards commissioning. It is not quite the same as outsourcing, as has been referred to, but it is largely brought about by budget pressures and is a change that is coming anyway. Now and in the years to come we will see local authorities all over the country of all political persuasions increasingly commissioning services not just from commercial contractors, but from the third sector, joint ventures, charities and so on. I am pleased that the noble Lord has therefore included in subsection (4) of his proposed new clause a reference to,

“joint ventures, not-for-profit organisations”,

and so on, because that is at least in part the direction in which we are heading. For all those reasons, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate his amendment. I am also pleased that he included “significant” for reasons that he explained. I assume it will mean that all the smaller sub-contractors, for instance, will not necessarily be covered by this, and that is welcome too.