Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am grateful and my pride is restored. When I received the open-door response from my noble friend Lady Kramer on that occasion, I think I predicted that the two-word amendment which I moved in Committee would come back at this stage of the Bill as a two-page amendment. I did not anticipate that it would run to eight or nine amendments over five pages, but I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for their work to try to correct what we all recognise was an anomaly.

The Greater London Authority is happy with the amendments to Clause 21 and with Clause 21 when amended, but there are still concerns about Clause 22. The Government’s proposals are welcome, but they do not go quite as far as they need to in order to correct what the Government intend. That is because the protection afforded by the new clause does not completely cover historic disposals. We are trying to correct an omission from the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. It is the view of the GLA that to be legally robust and clear to prevent unnecessary blocking of planned strategically important developments, the legal operation of the changes made by Clause 22 needs to be retrospective and to cover historic disposals. My Amendment 93A to Clause 22(11) would ensure that the changes in the clause cover relevant developments in London from the time that Section 11 of and Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 came into force, which was 1 December 2008. That would mean that all relevant land left unprotected by the defective provisions of that Schedule 3 would be covered by the corrections made by this amended Clause 22. It would also cover the appropriate corresponding provision that applied to the London Development Agency prior to its abolition.

That is entirely consistent with the Government’s intentions. I hope that the Minister will be in a position today to accept Amendment 93A. If he is not in a position to do so today, I hope that he will give a commitment to look at this point, which the Greater London Authority rightly feels to be important, and to correct it at a later stage, preferably at Third Reading in this House so that I can tie up the loose ends, but if that is too quick, then at a further stage of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we are grateful for the explanation provided by the Minister today and in the letter of 30 October. It follows a commitment made by the Minister when we discussed an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which called for the GLA to perform the role of disposal agency in London. This parallels the role designated for the HCA outside London, whereby land from arm’s-length bodies can be transferred directly rather than via the parent department. We support these amendments.

We also support the amendment just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the cut-off point and the date from which these provisions apply. That anomaly was pointed out in Committee. I hope that the Minister is able to give a positive response.

In Committee, we also probed the prospect of one or more local authorities adopting a similar role, particularly given the prospect of releasing substantial sums of publicly owned land to support housing development. This appeared to find some approval from the Minister, who undertook to explore further. Given that we do not have an amendment from the Government on this point, is this issue still under active consideration?

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Grand Committee

[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.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, there will be a subsequent debate in respect of Clause 24 so I will speak generally to both clauses and pick up any further points in the subsequent debate. Clause 23 transfers responsibility for local land charges to the Land Registry, while Clause 24 confers additional powers on the Land Registry. Neither of these propositions can be divorced from the parallel proposition for a new model of a Land Registry delivery company, which is widely believed to be a step along the way to privatisation of the service.

Just yesterday the Government pulled the plug—at least for the time being and, I am bound to say, not with good grace—by recognising that they would have to give further consideration to the complexity of their proposed new business strategy, including moving complex applications online and automating processes. There were high levels of disagreement anyway with the suggestion that an arm’s-length model would enable operations to be more efficient and effective or that such models would have the right checks and balances to protect the integrity of the registry. While reaffirming that they are moving ahead with the digital transformation, the Government have stated,

“at this time, no decision has been taken to change Land Registry’s model”.

While we should not be under the misapprehension that the threat has gone away, we should recognise that the news, unnecessarily delayed as it is, will come as some relief to the staff and to those who campaigned against the folly which privatisation would represent.

Mr John Manthorpe, a former Chief Land Registrar, has stated in a letter:

“The Land Registry is a successful and highly regarded department of government with a 150 year history. It makes no call on the exchequer and has a 97% customer satisfaction rating … It conducts its business impartially and free from any conflicts of interest. It grants and guarantees title on all transactions so providing the security of tenure and conveyancing machinery on which a stable society depends and without which the property, transfer and mortgage markets could not function”.

I could rest my case for this clause and Clause 24 not remaining part of the Bill at this point. If the Government have to hold back on their proposed plans for the Land Registry because they need to revisit the model to deliver their new business strategy, it is difficult to see how it could possibly take on responsibility for local land charges and more, largely unspecified, powers relating to that. There are some 20 million local land charges registered, with 65,000 updates every month.

There are further detailed arguments that deserve to be heard. For a start, the consultation on wider powers and local land charges was flawed. It was conducted by the Land Registry itself, which clearly had an interest in the outcome. There were concerns that it was overly focused on what would add value to the Land Registry, and that it was undertaken with at least half an eye to privatisation.

The Land Registry proposal is to take over the maintenance and searches of the register of local land charges. It argues that this is necessary because of a perceived lack of consistency and standardisation in the provision of local land charges. The World Bank ease of doing business survey marked the UK down on the ease of registering a business, including the speed of registering and transferring commercial property. This was also prayed in aid of the proposal.

However, the Law Society, in its submission to the consultation, expressed the view that in recent times local authorities and other providers have been producing search results in a timelier and more consistent manner and at a predictable cost. Indeed, the impact assessment noted that there had been annual productivity gains of 2%. The Law Society expressed the view that while there is merit in seeking to create a single local land charge and CON29 service, most practitioners would not regard it as a priority for the Land Registry to address. It says:

“Having more consistent processes for discharging charges … could markedly improve and de-risk the process”.

Dealing with searches is just part of the conveyancing process. The Law Society’s conclusion is that the research conducted by the Land Registry does not demonstrate that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.

It is suggested that the speed of service conducted by local authorities is causing a problem in the conveyancing market. This is despite a recent survey indicating that the turnaround time for 96% of searches that involve only local land charges is less than 10 days, with three-quarters being returned within five days. Searches involving local land charges and CON29 have slightly less speedy performance but, as it is proposed that the latter stay with local authorities, it does not seem that overall search turnaround times will improve.

The District Councils’ Network has expressed concerns at the proposed separation of land charges to be undertaken by Land Registry from CON29 searches, which will remain the responsibility of local authorities. It considers that this fragmentation creates a risk of inconsistency, with the potential for errors and omissions. It says that insufficient weight has been given to the local knowledge that resides with local authorities, which are still generally the originators of the data. Local authorities will still incur costs in collating and supplying data, in maintaining a database and, presumably, for indemnity insurance—when there is no income stream from search fees. It also instances that many local authorities have made recent investments in digitalisation, for which no recovery is promised by the Land Registry.

As the Local Land Charges Institute points out, the original intention of the Land Registry was to take over and maintain the database for local land charges and CON29. However, having studied the proposition for over a year, it decided to abandon the idea. Therefore, as things stand, Clause 23 would mean a fragmented service, with no credible alternative being offered. The Council of Property Search Organisations—CoPSO—offers the view that the sector is currently operating well, with healthy competition. It says that the claimed postcode lottery is illusory and that there is no real problem to fix. Moreover, it suggests that the threat to local authority jobs could result in increased waiting times for searches, with consequent detriment to the housing market.

The Local Land Charges Institute argues: that the perceived problems with the land charge function has been overstated; that such problems as there are can be resolved more simply and with less cost; that the demand for the Land Registry takeover has been overstated; and that the Land Registry has failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the processes and risks involved in the local land charge function and is proposing a worse service. It says that the Land Registry has failed to demonstrate how it will actually provide the service and that the Land Registry has proposed a number of unsatisfactory business models over the past three years and now proposes to take over only half the service, providing less information to customers than local authorities currently do, leaving local authorities to undertake the more complex work and providing a fragmented service to customers.

The LGA expresses opposition, in particular making the point that the proposals will leave councils with the expense of adjusting systems, breaking existing contracts and paying redundancy costs. It says that over the longer term the costs to councils of compiling, checking and verifying data have not been properly accounted for in the analysis.

The opposition is glaringly obvious from the Government’s own consultation: 94% of respondents do not think that the Land Registry has considered all feasible options and 95% do not support the Land Registry taking over the local land charge function from local government. It is time to think again, as even the Government have recognised on their delivery company. It is time to remove the clause from the Bill.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I confess to relative ignorance on the subject of the Land Registry, so I have been trying to understand better. Naturally, I wish to support my Government, and particularly want to support my noble friend the Minister, who has to reply to this. I have a number of concerns, some of which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, set out very fully when making his points. Like him, I, too, have had representations from the Local Land Charges Institute and from the Law Society, which have made a number of points to which I am sure the Minister will reply.

Certain things increase my concern. First, of course, this takes functions away from local authorities and centralises them. There are two things that instinctively trigger me as a localist, and I find them difficult. I therefore need to understand better than I currently do, not just what the problem is that we are trying to fix, but what the scale of the problem is, as the Government see it, that makes it necessary to take these functions away from local authorities and centralise them. Throughout history, the experience of centralising does not necessarily automatically lead to greater efficiency, nor does it seem immediately to be in keeping with the Government’s commitment to localism.

On a similar and related point, I have seen several times the awful phrase “postcode lottery” used with reference to the current situation. I hate that phrase; if we put it rather differently, so-called postcode lotteries mean we recognise that different factors apply in different areas and that local people—local authorities, in this instance—are able to determine their priorities, their way of doing things and, for that matter, what charges they wish to set for local services. If that is called a postcode lottery then I am all in favour of it but I would prefer to call it real localism.

My next point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. He referred to the results of the consultation, which came out significantly against the Government’s proposals. That has been dismissed as self-interest. In a sense, that is true; it is pretty obvious that the Local Land Charges Institute has an interest. You can call it a self-interest if you like, but I have to say that the responses to most consultations come from organisations or people with what could be called a self-interest. It just so happens that that self-interest means that they usually know very much more about the subject than most of us do. The fact that they have a self-interest—or, as I would put it, a greater knowledge—certainly does not mean that they are by definition wrong or that their views should be dismissed. Certainly, the context should be recognised.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Thursday 10th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord McKenzie of Luton, and would enable local authorities to set their own permitted development rights. I am grateful to have the support of the Labour Benches for this amendment. I take it to be a commitment on behalf of the Labour Party that this will become government policy, should it ever be in a position to make it so. As we all know, the current system is centrally set and nationally determined and local authorities have extremely limited opportunities to change or vary what is set down nationally.

The Minister has already said today, and on many occasions, and I know she firmly believes it, that the people best placed to take these decisions are local planning authorities. We heard this in an earlier debate this afternoon. Local planning authorities are in a position to know what local needs, priorities and circumstances are, they know best what is needed to determine and stimulate local growth, yet they do not have the opportunity to set their own permitted development rights. Surely, it must follow logically from all that we all say that local authorities should have the power and ability to set such rights themselves. That is the purpose of this amendment, and in view of what has been said in earlier debates today I am confident of its acceptance. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated, we have added our names to this amendment and we support it. It took me back to a debate during the course of the Growth and Infrastructure Act when identical amendments were moved and rejected by the Government. The Government’s defence then was that the Article 4 direction would be a route that local authorities could use if they were not happy with what central government was doing. At that point, there was disagreement between the LGA and the Government about how user-friendly that route actually was. The Government were going to talk to the LGA to see whether those matters could be clarified, so it would be very helpful to know whether any clarification was forthcoming. In particular, there was an issue about how the Secretary of State should approach the use of Article 4. I refer to the debate on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill:

“Is it still the position that the Secretary of State’s general approach to making an Article 4 direction, as set out in paragraph 4.23 of planning policy guidance note 15—”

here I asked whether that policy guidance still existed—

“is that, ‘permitted development rights should not be withdrawn without clear justification’?”.—[Official Report, 12/3/2013; col. 195.]

It would be helpful to know whether that interpretation is still imposed upon the Secretary of State in dealing with any Article 4 direction.

Having said that and raised those inquiries, I thoroughly support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, for their support and to the Minister for her reply. I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the Minister just explain again? Are we saying that any powers that could accrue and be put in place for a local development corporation are, in total, otherwise available to a local authority on an individual or a joint basis? Is that what the Minister is saying?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Splendid.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I reassure the Minister that I did not feel short-changed and that I feel even less short-changed now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the procedure for the appointment of auditors provided for in Clause 8 seems overly bureaucratic, but if that is the Government’s approach, I suppose this amendment simply adds to that bureaucracy. Amendment 14ZF would require that the term of the appointment be part of the notification. Indeed, it might specifically cover the point probed by my noble friend Lord Beecham as to whether it is a reappointment.

Amendment 14ZE would require that the appointment process be set down. Transparency on this matter is for the Government, not unreasonably, of high importance, and we agree. The process will have an impact on competition and pricing, so making the interviewing process clear, assuming there was one, and what firms were involved would be an indication of the relevant authority’s commitment to these issues. It might also provide an indication of the commitment to trying to open up the market, an indicator of whether local or regional firms have been included.

Doubtless the Minister will tell us that this amendment is unnecessary and will flow from the process set down. That is fine, but it would be good to have an idea of the Government’s expectations over these areas.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, began by describing this process as overly bureaucratic, but then I think he went on to say that, since it is overbureaucratic, let us have an amendment that makes it even more bureaucratic. That is not the most compelling argument that I have ever heard from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, as I suspect he knows very well.

The amendment certainly seems to describe what is good practice and what I hope would happen in practice. I am moderately confident that that is what would happen, certainly with any good authority. Whether we need to have an even more bureaucratic process to enshrine all this in legislation, I am very doubtful, and whichever Minister is replying they will no doubt tell us that we do not want to make it too bureaucratic.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, the amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley. We have debated this clause extensively, under its former guise of Clause 6, at every stage of consideration of this Bill so far and it is certainly not my intention today to reopen debates on the many issues that the clause raises. They have been fully debated; I think that views still differ but, as I have said so often, we are where we are.

On Report, the Government, having listened to at least some of the concerns that were expressed, introduced a sunset clause to bring the clause to an end on 30 April 2016. I welcomed that sunset clause and the evidence that the Government had at least listened to those concerns. However, the government amendment on Report also gave the Secretary of State power to extend the provisions, if judged necessary, for in effect an unlimited period. My amendment today therefore seeks to limit any such extension, should it be deemed necessary, to no more than 24 months.

I am sure that the Minister will say that the clause was introduced in recognition of the current economic circumstances and in the expectation that they would not continue for ever. Indeed, in introducing the sunset clause for April 2016, the Minister was at pains to express that that date had been chosen not arbitrarily but because that was when it was suggested and expected that—I hesitate to say the boom would begin—circumstances would recover.

I am sure that it is the Government’s intention that these provisions should cease to exist on 30 April 2016, but concern is rightly felt that there could be circumstances—after a general election, there will be a new Government of whichever hue—in which the provisions could carry on indefinitely, which many of us feel to be wrong. Our attempt, therefore, is to limit the clause to two years. By that time, under the National Planning Policy Framework, all local authorities should have drawn up their local plan—70% have already published one—and those up-to-date plans will ensure that every planning requirement is viability-tested, which should in turn render this clause redundant.

I should like to think that the Government are able to accept the amendment. If they are not, I hope that the Minister will express her sympathy and support for its intentions and put that on record. While that is not as good as its being in the Bill, it is at least some reassurance for now and for the future. I hope that, in doing so, she will also indicate that any future Government, if they are minded to extend the provisions of this clause, will come forward with robust evidence that proves that affordable housing obligations are routinely stalling developments. I am not sure that we are convinced of that now, but, if there is to be any extension, it will certainly be incumbent on the Minister of the time to provide the evidence to convince both Houses of Parliament that it is necessary, and both Houses of Parliament should have the opportunity to decide on those matters.

I do not think that I need to detain the House any longer. The purpose of the amendment is quite clear. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 3, which is intended to have the same effect as Amendment 2. If it is pre-empted by Amendment 2, I would be more than happy with that outcome.

At the moment we have a sunset clause that is in rather an unsatisfactory situation. Effectively we have the right for developers to renegotiate affordable housing obligations on which the sun indeed may never set. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, now is not the time to revisit our broader concerns about these provisions. On Report the Minister justified the three-year primary period of the sunset clause by quoting evidence from the OBR that showed that investment in housing is expected to stabilise in 2016, yet she argued the need for a pragmatic power to extend this if prevailing market conditions justified it.

This is a hard argument to maintain unless the Minister is anticipating a further deterioration in the housing market. By 2016, developers will have been negotiating affordable housing obligations in circumstances of recession, or of zero or little growth, for about eight years. The amendment allows for a possible further two years, so it would then have been for a full decade. Perhaps the Minister can be more specific about the nature of the catastrophe that she considers might beset the housing market that would justify retaining residual powers beyond 2018.

The March 2013 OBR report does not seem to help, as it comments on the variety of housing measures that the Government have promulgated, noting that overall, together with the Funding for Lending scheme, the measures should support significant growth in property transactions and residential investment at levels that we forecast for the next two years. The Government may have got something right; is the Minister saying that the OBR has got it wrong?

The justification for a possible two-year extension of the sunset clause is pretty thin. The opportunity to keep Clause 7 in being beyond this is not justified, unless it is intended to be held up as some sword of Damocles to ensure that future affordable housing obligations are depressed. We agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, that a maximum of two further years of the sunset clause is okay but not more than that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, we hope that the Minister can reassure us on that so that we do not need to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have no problem with this amendment. I reciprocate by thanking the noble Baroness and her team for the extreme courtesy with which they have handled this Bill and for the very extensive discussions that the noble Baroness has organised, some of which one could get to and some of which one could not. I also thank the Bill team for its helpful input.

[Lord Tope]

I briefly join the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, both in supporting the amendment and in extending our thanks to the Minister and to the Bill team for listening, sometimes for acting, and certainly for always being open and available for discussions.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves found today that he was unable to get to London and asked me to move his amendment, which with the leave of the House I rise to do. I shall endeavour to say roughly what my noble friend would have said, although not necessarily in the manner in which he would have said it.

This is an amendment to Clause 13, which inserts new Sections 15A and 15B into the Commons Act 2006. Their effect is to allow the owner of a piece of land that is not already registered as a town or village green to make a statement to the commons registration authority—a unitary or upper-tier council—which brings to an end any period during which persons have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land; that is, informal recreation, openly, without hindrance and without permission.

The result of making such a landowner statement is to bring to an end the right of anyone to make an application for registration of the land as a town or village green under Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006. However, under Section 15(3) of the Commons Act, there is a period of two years before that right comes to an end, in which such an application for registration as a green can still be made.

There was discussion in Committee on the question of how people would know that a landowner had made a statement under this new provision. Amendments were proposed by my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made some very helpful commitments that,

“where a landowner statement is deposited with a commons registration authority, the authority will be required to publicise it”.—[Official Report, 30/1/13; col. 1602.]

The Minister assured the Committee that regulations will include this requirement but that specific publicity requirements are best set out in regulations rather than in the Bill. She added, equally helpfully:

“The regulations will require that commons registration authorities take appropriate steps to ensure that local people and other interested parties are made aware of the fact that a landowner statement has been deposited”.—[Official Report, 30/1/13; col. 1603.]

The purpose of this amendment today is to probe further the Government’s thinking on what are “appropriate steps”. In particular, will there be appropriate publicity in the local media serving the locality in which the land is situated, not just centrally in what might be a far-flung county authority—which might just be Lancashire? Will it include a physical notice on the land itself? Will it include notification of specialist organisations such as the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers’ Association, as well as organisations representing landowners? I hope that the Minister can give these assurances today. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who seems overnight to have inherited the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in this area, pressed the point about assurances that we seek from Ministers. My recollection corresponds with that of the noble Lord—that in Committee we got assurances from the Minister about publicity that would be given to these registrations—and it would be helpful to have some further clarification on the lines proposed.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

Amendment 2 will have the effect of giving a 12-month period between a local planning authority being identified as performing poorly and the time when it may become designated. In Committee I suggested 18 months, my noble friend Lord Greaves suggested 12 months and we did not need to argue over that. I have settled on 12 months because part of the Government’s argument against the amendment at that time was that 18 months was too long.

There is a slightly different approach towards Clause 1 and designation. The Government have said that they want Clause 1 as a deterrent to local authorities. I prefer to see Clause 1 as an incentive. There is an important difference in thinking: a deterrent is something negative which implies punishment at the end if you do not comply, whereas I see incentive as encouragement, something positive, to seek to improve. That is what the Government seek to achieve as well. They are not out to punish local planning authorities—that has become very clear during the course of the many debates on this clause. They are seeking improvement too.

I suggest that there should be a 12-month period from the time when a local planning authority becomes aware that its performance is poor enough to warrant possible designation. It should then have the time to take the necessary actions itself, if it can, to bring about the necessary improvements, to join with others in a peer-led improvement, on which the Local Government Association—of which I am not a vice-president—has a very good track record and which I know the Government have appreciated on many occasions. It also gives time for the Government and others to assess the direction of travel of that local planning authority. If it is improving at a significant rate, then to designate it at the end of that period would seem to be an unnecessary punishment. We should, rather, stimulate with greater encouragement.

This amendment is brought forward in good faith in the hopes of further helping the Government to achieve their objectives. The Planning Minister, Mr Boles, has said that he hopes that neither he nor any future Government will ever have need to use the provisions in Clause 1 because local planning authorities will have improved their performance and it will be unnecessary. The amendment allows a sufficient and reasonable time period to enable local authorities to bring that about themselves without suffering the punishment of designation.

I hope that when the Minister replies she will spell out how the Government see this as an incentive to improve, not a punishment to be inflicted for poor performance. When we look at the process in more detail we can see how that is being achieved. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in Committee on a similar amendment proposing a period of 18 months. The intention is to give early warning to local authorities, so that they have an opportunity to improve with the help of other local authorities, the LGA, and possibly even the Government.

The thrust of the amendment is entirely reasonable. We suspect that the Government’s response will be that authorities will know in good time. Designation will be based on two years’ data and authorities will know the results of the first of these years. If they are failing the criteria for year 1, the danger signals will be there for the end of year 2. Councils will be able to seek to improve. This does not address the position at the start of the scheme where, before the ink is dry on the legislation, the die will effectively be cast.

At a recent meeting, which was kindly organised with the Planning Minister, it was hinted that there might be some easement in the early period. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there are any such developments. In any event, on an ongoing basis, knowing in year 2 that year 1 criteria have not been met may not give the local planning authority sufficient time to improve. Improvement may in part depend on the nature of any new applications. Tardy dealing with the major development submitted in year 1 may affect the data for year 2. For a small local planning authority, staff sickness and the timescales to recruit new staff are factors which anyway could mean that a local authority has insufficient time to turn things around by the end of year 2.

If the objective is to encourage sustainable improvement in local planning authorities, the rigid application of the criteria could be counterproductive. The noble Lord’s amendment seems to give an opportunity of improving that situation under these arrangements. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that if we do not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister today, he should consider testing the opinion of the House on this proposition.

That leads to our Amendment 15, which requires the serving of a notice of intention to designate but then, crucially, a chance for a local planning authority to make representations as to why designation would be inappropriate—not for an extensive period but for just four weeks in this case. We know that the Government will argue for the importance of transparency and certainty in the process but they should also recognise that a range of factors could affect the timeliness of dealing with applications—difficult development, statutory consultees, extended and iterative community consultation, to name but a few. It might be argued that anyone served with a prospective designation notice is bound to make representations but of course not all will be justified.

In any event, at a recent meeting, we heard from the Planning Minister that although the number of likely local planning authorities to be designated has crept up—I think that he suggested 20—that surely is not too large a group for there to be the opportunity to make representations. We should think of the damage to and the demotivation of a planning team which gets designated through no genuine reasons that it could influence.

Perhaps I may again take the noble Baroness back to our deliberations in Committee when she said:

“There are usually reasons why planning applications are delayed, and one may be that an application will take longer than the normal consultation period. Before an authority is designated, it will be allowed to put that view forward and say that it has not been able to deal with certain applications because it has agreed that the process will take longer, or there may be some other reason. A portcullis will not just come down; discussions and explanations will be possible”.—[Official Report, 22/1/13; col. 1032.]

That seems to be pretty clear and suggests that there should be scope for precisely what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and our Amendment 15 seek. Unfortunately, from all that we have heard so far, it seems as though the portcullis will just come down and that there will be no stay of execution on this.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I welcome those reassurances very warmly. I am grateful. Let me clarify for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, though he probably understood. I am not sure how to phrase this, but I was proposing that the Mayor of London should in London have the role otherwise ascribed to the Secretary of State. I must be careful how I phrase that, because I am not sure that either would wish to be likened to each other. I was not suggesting for one moment that the mayor should take the role of the local planning authority. I agree with the Minister that in most cases I would hope that the issue would be resolved with the local planning authority in an amicable and fair way.

The mayor would be notified, which is not very difficult these days. There are not that many projects under review in London. I would hope that in many cases he would not feel the need to call it in, but that if he did there would certainly be a good reason to do so. After 12 and a bit years in London, I have more confidence that not only would a better decision come from City Hall than from PINS in Bristol, but that it would be a quicker decision than if it were referred to the Planning Inspectorate, which is likely to have a considerably increased workload. All round, it is a better solution and I am pleased and reassured to hear that the Government are giving positive consideration to it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the noble Lord help me out on this point? Where Clause 6 refers to 106BB appeals, it states in new subsection (18) that:

“In the application of Schedule 6 to an appeal under this section in a case where the authority mentioned in subsection (1) is the Mayor of London, references in that Schedule to the local planning authority are references to the Mayor of London”.

If there are circumstances where, for a Mayor of London or a local planning authority, you have to read “Mayor of London”, then the Mayor of London duly cannot then act instead of the Secretary of State. Maybe this is not the occasion to unpick that particular provision, but I would like some clarification on it and I imagine the noble Lord would as well.

[Lord Tope]

I should have been a little quicker begging leave to withdraw. I would indeed welcome clarification. I am sure it will be forthcoming when we hear further what proposals the Government have.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 28th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have a couple of amendments in this group, but perhaps I might make a few upfront comments now following our early discussions. Our concern about this clause generally is that it will lead to a reduction in the supply of affordable housing. Specifically on that point, I do not think that we have seen the equalities impact assessment for this clause; if we have, doubtless the Minister will let us know, but it would be very helpful if we saw that before we got much further into our deliberations.

The Government’s rationale for this clause is that there are sites where planning permission exists but where development has not started because the affordable housing obligation makes the development not economically viable. This obviously begs the question of how you define and calibrate viability and the extent to which it is the affordable housing obligation that is the cause of the project having stalled. We have received some data about estimates of the number of sites stalled and the housing that might be held up by this, but no real evidence of the extent—if at all—to which this is caused by affordable housing obligations, and our amendments seek to probe this. Can the Minister provide any further information? Will she provide us with a full report with a list of the sites involved and the numbers of affordable housing involved—that is, those sites where it is the affordable housing that is making them unviable?

We think that the clause is unnecessary because local authorities already have the power to renegotiate all aspects of Section 106 and they are using that power, as the Minister has previously accepted. Moreover, the Government have consulted on existing powers and the prospect of reducing the time—I think that it is currently five years—after which an appeal to amend the obligation can be made to the Secretary of State. What is happening with the Government’s response on that consultation?

This clause undermines and potentially discredits the local plan, a process that will have undergone public scrutiny and will have set affordable housing policies. In essence, judgments that have been made about meeting a locality’s housing need may be set aside for the economics of the here and now—set aside, indeed, for generations.

The Government have made play about providing additional funding—£300 million, I think—to support affordable housing. How is that to be applied? Could it not be used in whole or in part to move forward those sites that the Government claim are stored? Is that not a better way forward?

Amendment 55A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, is one that we can support and to which, as the Committee have heard, we have added our name. It restricts the application of the clause to obligations that were entered into prior to Royal Assent. This would act as some restraint on developers overbidding for land and shutting out more responsible bidders that would adhere to local policies, with the prospect of being able to scale back commitments in future.

There is a wider point which we might pursue on Report if this clause remains. As I have said, the Government have been pursuing what they call a separate proposal to allow renegotiation of wider Section 106 planning obligations but only those agreed prior to April 2010. So far as I am aware, we have not seen the response to that. The consultation says:

“We consider that 6 April 2010 is an appropriate cut–off date for this change. New statutory tests were introduced for most planning obligations on 6 April 2010 which ensure that obligations agreed after that date must only cover what is necessary to make the development acceptable, must be directly related to the development and reasonable in scale and kind. It is also clear that a high proportion of stalled developments are dated prior to April 2010 when market conditions were different”.

It is surely the case that this logic applies to affordable homes obligations as to any other Section 106 obligations, so the Government should have no difficulty in accepting the cut-off proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which is apparently less restrictive than the Government’s own thinking.

Amendments 55AA and 55CC provide that an application to modify an affordable housing obligation cannot be made within a certain time of its being entered into. The amendment sets this at two years from the beginning of the grant of planning permission or as may otherwise be prescribed. The purpose of the amendment is obvious. Clause 6 should not run when the Section 106 agreement is reasonably fresh. Consideration of economic viability is not without cost, time and expense and there should be encouragement on applicants and local planning authorities to get it right first time. Knowing that the affordable housing obligation cannot be unpicked for a period of time will at least help to concentrate the mind. It will also strengthen the role of the local planning authority in clearly establishing that its deliberations cannot be immediately brushed aside.

We have added our names to the sunset clause; it has not formally been moved but I will add my comments as I am on my feet. Our preference is for this clause to be removed in its entirety. Failing that, limited by the type of amendments that we have just discussed, time limit in the application of the clause would serve as a backstop to other amendments, giving it a limited life of three years. The rationale for a limited life for this clause was—I think—going to be set out by the noble Lord who was due to move it and follows the analysis in particular of the National Housing Federation. Over the next three years the NPPF should have bedded down and its focus on taking account of the viability of affordable housing should be well established. We are told that the clause is necessary in the first place because of the economic downturn. I presume—despite current GDP figures—that the Government would not argue that this will continue indefinitely. In any event, commitments made in better economic times are washing through the system.

The Government clearly see the clause as having some time limit as Clause 6(4) enables the Secretary of State to repeal by order Section 106BA and 106BB. Perhaps the Minister can say what the Government had in mind for the application of these provisions. What criteria will the Secretary of State have in mind when looking to activate this power and to repeal the clause?

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I do not think that I can actually move the sunset clause. Amendment 55CD is in a group, so it would be a little premature. I will most certainly speak to it. I was offering the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the courtesy of allowing him to speak to the amendments in his name which are earlier in the group.

Amendment 55A is also in my name, and I am very pleased to support it. As both the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, have spoken to it I do not think there is anything I need to add at this stage other than to listen with interest to the Minister’s reply. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has inevitably done some of my job in speaking to Amendment 55CD and I welcome and endorse what he had to say on that. It is indeed a sunset clause. It would mean that this section will no longer have effect three years after the Bill is enacted. That is because it should no longer be necessary three years after the Bill is enacted.

The NPPF was adopted nearly a year ago and it stressed the importance of ensuring economic and financial viability in all affordable housing schemes. The NPPF should be doing that job and should continue to do that job. Local planning authorities in their negotiations of Section 106 agreements should be taking that very much into account with developers; Section 106 agreements from henceforth, as long as they last, should meet this requirement. Who knows when the current economic difficulties will come to an end? I hope that that will happen one day—they have certainly been in place for rather longer than a year or more.

It is our view that this clause, which has not found universal favour in your Lordships’ House, really should not be necessary after three years. By that time all the existing Section 106 agreements will have either been implemented or expired. Planning consents extant at that time will have been granted under the regime of the National Planning Policy Framework; therefore this clause should cease to be needed and cease to have any effect. That is the reason for the sunset clause which I now speak to, but do not move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, Amendment 55AC is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley. The intention of the amendment is to ensure consideration of all planning obligation costs, including possibly the cost of the community infrastructure levy.

The concentration of this clause solely on affordable housing has understandably caused a good deal of concern—which I am certain was not the intention—that in some way the Government are downgrading the importance of affordable housing and their commitment to providing it. I know that that is not the case. Nevertheless, that impression is inevitably given when a piece of legislation refers to only one aspect of a Section 106 agreement. The provision of affordable housing is often a very important part of a Section 106 agreement, but it is rarely the only part. There are many other aspects of such an agreement, such as contribution to transport and transport infrastructure, or to education in the local area, and the community infrastructure levy itself. Therefore, if consideration is to be given to the viability of a Section 106 agreement, surely it should take into account all those matters, not just one of them.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all aspects contributing to the viability or otherwise of a Section 106 agreement are considered. Other aspects of it may be varied, not necessarily and certainly not only the provision of affordable housing. That seems to be a fair and equitable way of recognising that economic conditions have changed since the Section 106 agreement was agreed, and of finding the best and most equitable way of varying it, without necessarily focusing solely or even at all on affordable housing. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, our Amendments 55AD, 55AE and 55CA are in this group. Amendment 55AD touches on the basis on which a local authority views economic viability. It requires the local authority to proceed to determination of the modified requirements if it assesses that the affordable housing requirement is the sole reason that the development is not economically viable. We will come on to discuss viability and how it is to be determined, but the reality under such a determination is likely to be that a number of factors influence economic viability. One problem with this clause is that it can lead to adjustment only of the affordable housing obligation, as we have discussed. This is unfair.

The Minister in the other place sought to differentiate affordable housing obligations from other Section 106 items on the basis that they were somehow discretionary and not in the same category as road improvements or school enhancements, the need for which might flow directly from the development. This gives scant regard to the validity of the local plan, and to the benefits of building sustainable mixed communities, by suggesting that somehow they are far less important than housing or having sufficient road capacity. Obviously, not having the benefit of proposed new Sections 106BA and 106BB does not mean that there are no other remedies for the developer. A negotiated arrangement with the local planning authority would be one, conducted without the Secretary of State’s powers looming large over the process.

Amendment 55AE requires that if a local planning authority determines to modify an affordable housing obligation, the modification must not materially conflict with the strategic policies of the development plan, and it must be the case that any other form of development that would accord with the development plan would not be economically viable. This is to emphasise the point that planning is not only about economic viability but should be anchored in the democratically derived local plan, with the intricate balances that this sometimes entails.

Amendment 55CA excludes from the definition of affordable housing that can be modified under the clause situations where an obligation would include land to be reserved and transferred to the local planning authority or RSL. The purpose of the amendment is to keep available land for affordable housing in the future. We support Amendment 55AC, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and Amendment 55BA, which would not preclude a modification being more onerous if there was a compensating, less onerous modification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am most grateful to the Minister and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I think that it will be me who begs leave to withdraw this time, and I was about to do that when the noble Lord intervened some minutes ago. It has been an interesting debate. I cannot help feeling that we have gone around in circles a little, but that is not unknown. I am equally certain that we will return to this issue at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves and to which I have added my name. Clause 1 gives the power to the Secretary of State to designate a local planning authority as deemed to be failing, thus enabling applicants for major projects to apply direct to the Planning Inspectorate should they so desire. I said at Second Reading, and I will say again, that I am very grateful to Ministers in the other place for the assurances that they have given for the criteria that have been proposed and for the reassurance that the clause is not quite as bad as it seems. But I still say that it is directly contrary to the spirit of localism, which we have spent many happy hours discussing in this House.

I understand that the Government are determined to keep the clause in the Bill and, of course, I respect that. The Local Government Association has described it as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am bound to say that I am inclined to agree with that description. However, if we are to have the clause, it is the role and duty of this House to make it as workable as it can be—some might say, to make it as harmless as it can be. The Government have said that they wish to keep the clause as a deterrent. I would feel happier if we could approach this on the basis of keeping it as an incentive. The latter approach calls for a different state of mind. The Government are adopting a sort of target-led approach whereby an authority that does not meet certain criteria will be designated. I think we all accept that there have been, are, and sadly probably always will be some local planning authorities that do not perform as well as they should. There is a different debate to be had about exactly what we mean by performance and how we measure it, but let us start from that basis.

I believe that the best way to improve a poorly performing authority with regard to planning as to most other things is first and foremost through what is normally called sector-led improvement to enable it to improve itself, not to punish it in some way by taking away its authority. The purpose of Amendment 1 is to require the Secretary of State to give 18 months’ notice of designation. That 18 months would allow the local authority to look at how it can improve its performance and then to be judged on the way in which it improves, not on the way in which it has performed in the past.

I am aware that Amendment 32, to which I have given my support, suggests a period of 12 months rather than 18 months. At this stage I do not want to get too hung up on the difference between 18 months and 12 months. The important principle with this amendment is that the Secretary of State should give a lengthy period of notice to enable a local authority to improve itself, helped and assisted by other local authorities and, indeed, by the Local Government Association. The Local Government Association thinks that 18 months is probably a more appropriate period, primarily because it enables better and more realistic data collection so that we can see the direction of travel that that authority is taking. Is it gradually improving? If it is improving over that period, designating it would be a considerable disincentive, not an incentive. If it is making no improvement, or indeed even getting worse, that is more justification for the designation.

A poorly performing local planning authority may well need to recruit better planning officers and better staff to enable it to improve its performance. However, it takes considerable time to recruit and embed those staff and for the improvements that we hope they can bring about to work and be seen. It takes time, of course, to engage effectively with other helpful authorities or outside sources in order to improve. For all those reasons, the Local Government Association thinks that an 18-month period is more appropriate. However, the important point is that we have a lengthy enough period—be it a year or 18 months—to enable a local planning authority to improve itself before the imposition of the final, and frankly draconian, measure of designating and taking away its right, and therefore the right of the local people, effectively to decide their own major planning applications. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have Amendments 36 and 37 in this group, which I shall come to in a moment. If I may respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, he said that the Bill is not as bad as it seems. We may part company on that proposition but I think that we share company in wanting to mitigate its worst effects, if we cannot get rid of it in its entirety.

As regards Amendment 1 and the 18 months’ prior notice, certainly the thrust of this amendment is one which we can support, although it begs the question of the criteria for designation. However, I know that we are going to come to that point in due course.

As proposed in the consultation document, a designation would follow automatically from the criteria. The first is planned for October 2013, based on performance data for 2011-12 and 2012-13. On this basis, an 18-month lead time would mean designation in January or April 2015—not necessarily a bad thing if the authority has to wait that long. Obviously, the 18-month notice would give it time to improve its performance, but there would be only one more year of performance data. Some process of representation on improvements is needed, and we have amendments to cover this.

Amendment 36 requires the Secretary of State to,

“serve a notice of intention to designate”—

a parallel proposition—and for the local authority in question to have the chance to make representations as to,

“why designation would be inappropriate”.

We should be clear that our preference would be for the clause not to proceed at all but, if it does, it has to have a range of necessary safeguards built in.

It is the Government’s expressed intention that designation will be automatic following publication of the statistics relating to speed of determination and levels of successful appeals, although there will be an opportunity in year one to correct gaps or errors in the existing data. It is accepted that this would have the merit—if one could call it that—of providing information to authorities on how close they were to being designated, but this approach would not impact all authorities equally, which is why we consider that the opportunity to make representations should be allowed. This might be particularly important for smaller districts where the numbers of applications for major developments might be quite small. Indeed, we received some data a short while before Committee today. I do not know if all noble Lords received it, but some authorities in the year to March 2012 received as few as two major applications to deal with. Others received more than 160. Therefore, this process will not impact on all authorities equally. One or two applications might have a significant impact on an individual authority’s metrics and the circumstances may be outside its control. The delay may be down to the applicant or consultees; indeed, if problematic applications are in the pipeline, someone might try to game the system to push an authority towards designation. The delay might also be down to community issues. Applications relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites seldom go through on the nod.

Amendment 37 requires the Secretary of State to bring forward an improvement programme before designation can take place. This is an alternative formulation to that in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The programme could be a sector-led improvement or a combination of processes to ensure that local authorities have the opportunity to improve. However, what we must be clear about is that the clause cannot stand in its current formulation, and we need, one way or another, a range of the sort of protections that are dealt with in these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 5 and 25 in this group. These amendments would preclude the Secretary of State from including in the types of application that can be made to the Secretary of State, rather than a designated authority, certain types of developments. We have a parallel amendment grouped with this that would preclude any planning authority with responsibility for all or part of any of these areas from being designated. These include developments affecting flood risk areas, world heritage sites, national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty and sites of special scientific interest. Our natural environment and our heritage are precious assets that require special consideration in this context. Indeed, issues around conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, and meeting the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change, rightly feature robustly in the NPPF.

Our major concern, not allayed by discussion at the other end on this matter, is that the focus on process and timing under Clause 1 will drive the behaviours of local planning authorities and the speed of decision-making to run contrary to a wider, quality-led approach, which the NPPF demands. What it demands entails significant engagement, and not just from the applicant. It is clear from the Government’s consultation document that they see the speed of decision-making as paramount and are intent on increasing the threshold for designation in subsequent years, so excluding these situations from designation entirely is a necessary protection.

The Government have made great play of having clarity over designation, indicating that it will follow automatically after some transitional issues. However, we may have a qualification on that as a result of our last exchange. There seems no scope for local planning authorities charged with these responsibilities to explain their position on a case-by-case basis. From what the noble Baroness said a moment ago, perhaps she will say that that is now not the case.

I will comment in due course on Amendments 6, 7 and 26 when they have been spoken to, but it looks as though Amendments 7 and 26 have a substantial overlap with our Amendments 5 and 25. Clearly, we expect to be able to support them on that basis. I beg to move.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, Amendment 6 stands in my name and has been suggested by both the Local Government Association and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. It would of course mean that only local authorities which do not already have a local plan in place could be designated as poorly performing. In other words, it would immediately remove from the possibility of designation all those authorities that have a local plan in place. As we all know, the preparation and adoption of a local plan is a lengthy process. It is sometimes too lengthy a process but it is fully democratic and shows that the planning authority concerned is performing to proper democratic accords. On that basis, it is believed that they should be excluded from this threat.

Good, sensible local plans are forward-looking. They are intended and designed to encourage and stimulate growth. It is felt that they are in themselves probably a better measure of how well an authority is performing than individual planning applications—I think that this point has been made in earlier debates today—however major the project for which they are submitted. As I said, the intention of this amendment is to exclude those authorities that have adopted a local plan over the previous 20 years, as it suggests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, when Amendment 6 —which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope— was debated in the other place, my colleagues tabled a similar amendment and it was pointed out by the Minister that only one authority in the land had not had a local plan for 20 years. I am not sure how it got away with it for that long.

[Lord Tope]

It would achieve your objective.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Indeed. My point was going to be that if this is a way of wrecking the clause, I am all in favour of that, but let us do it at clause stand part and do it properly. If it is structured as a means of incentivising people to get on with their local plan, I would have more sympathy.

I side with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the national parks. The number of applications seems relevant because you might have two applications to deal with in a year, which several of these authorities did. If you determine each within 14 weeks of application, you would be designated. I think that would be the consequence of the fairly strict rule.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that it is important that we are happy about this because it is objective. We say yes to an objective approach, but that does not mean a blanket approach where exactly the same criteria apply to all because if that 30% criterion applies, when you have authorities with a very small number of applications, it could work in a perverse way.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 22nd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

If the Labour Party votes, it will vote with the Government. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested that we should be lobbying our coalition partners.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the noble Lord tell me what he and his colleagues have been doing for the past two and a half years?

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, as the noble Lord never ceases to remind us, we are actually part of the Government, and willingly so. We have been lobbying for a long time on this issue. I do not lightly bring an amendment to the House which I know that my coalition partners cannot agree with. I do so because we are at the very last stage of the Bill. This is the last opportunity that any of us in this House have to do something about it. I am now going to give the House the opportunity. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

Does the noble Lord believe that the House of Commons, as presently constituted, would accept this amendment and thus tie the hands of the Treasury?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Yes, my Lords. As my noble friend has advised me, that depends in large measure on how the Liberal Democrats use their votes in the other place. They are meant to be part of this Government and have some strength there. I think we have enough on the record. I am half tempted to press the matter to a vote, but I will accept what has been said and leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we tabled Amendments 79 and 81 in this group. Amendment 79 revisits a debate we had in Committee concerning resetting—indeed, it revisits a debate we had earlier today. It requires arrangements whereby the Secretary of State must formally report on representations received from local government about resetting the system, and the outcome of the Secretary of State’s deliberations on such representations. As we have discovered, resetting is a contentious issue. The Government have made their position clear: not before 2020. However, the fear is that the system introduced will not remain robust over that period and that many councils will find themselves in difficulties.

As the Minister asserted in Committee, it is accepted that receiving and considering representations is a fundamental part of government work. The amendment seeks some transparency in the process. It seeks the formal detailing of representations so that the scale and scope of any concerns are clear. It also requires exposition of the Government’s position and reasoning in response to such representations. The Minister will doubtless say that such an amendment is unnecessary if there is an undertaking to deliver what we seek. Perhaps I would agree, but I will make it clear that we seek a process that spells out for Parliament the representations that have been received and the Government’s decisions thereon.

Amendment 81 is more specific and requires a reset every three years, to coincide with each spending review. This will entail an assessment of relative resources and of the needs of local authorities. The exclusion of the specific issues that need to be assessed—deprivation, unemployment, child poverty, the number of looked-after children, adult social care and so on—emphasises not only the important role that local government can play, but what is at stake under these proposals. I offer that amendment in particular for noble Lords who expressed themselves in favour of resetting but did not feel able to sign up to a formal review process. It might be more palatable to some noble Lords; I will be interested to know whether it is.

We thoroughly support Amendment 18, moved by my noble friend Lord Smith. We have added our names to Amendments 57 and 58, and support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in tabling them.

Amendment 73, tabled by my noble friend Lord Smith, calls for the Secretary of State to compile each year and for each authority in England a raft of information about resources, including estimates for subsequent years. As ever, it seems an entirely reasonable proposition. We also support Amendment 78, to which we added our names. This is about changes to national business rate policy that impact on local business rate yields, and the requirement for consultation. It is absolutely essential that it takes place because the ground has shifted on this. Local authorities are at risk; they are not just collectors of the business rate now. They are at risk from the consequences of how much is collected, how the system operates, and any policy changes that central government may feel inclined to make. That is a particularly important issue.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I will say briefly that the mishap to which I referred earlier has occurred again with these amendments. My name should have been on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It did not happen, but my support is there. Again, I will not repeat what he said. He made the case very well, and we are all keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response. My noble friend Lord Jenkin again confessed to being the man who nationalised the business rate. I think that we have all long since forgiven him for the errors and misdeeds of his youth. He has more than compensated for them in the years since.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the broad alliance remains intact. We are very happy to support the amendment. The key points have been made. We are in a changed environment where what happens to business rates can have a direct impact on local government and this request is straightforward and honest, as the noble Lord described.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am not sure now whether I am part of an enlarged coalition or a broad alliance, but whatever it is I am pleased to be part of it. I feel comfortable in such a coalition and alliance. My name and that of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill have been added to the amendment and we are pleased to support it. The points have been made.

Perhaps I may add one thing. I suspect that it is unlikely that the Minister will stand up in a moment and say, “No, of course the Government will not consult anyone about this; we will just do it”. I do not think that that is going to happen. I am sure that we will receive reassurance that consultations would take place. I expect that we would have reassurance that the results of the consultation would be taken carefully into account. However, it is the next stage that also concerns many local authorities, and it certainly concerns me. If, as is very likely, there are financial implications from any such policy changes, the reassurance that I should like from the Minister is that the cost and effect of such policy changes will be fully funded by the Government, either anyway or under the new burdens initiative. Frankly, that is one of the key points that we are concerned about—not whether the Government will give us warm words and reassurances about consultation, but whether the effects of any such change will also be fully funded. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, at the beginning of his moving the amendment and echo also the words of my noble friend Lord Greaves in thanking very much the Ministers and the Bill team for the very constructive way in which this Bill’s very lengthy process has been approached. As I understand it, we are now sending something like 100 pages of amendments back to the Commons. What is more notable is that all those amendments have been passed without the need for a vote; in other words, we have truly reached consensus. Of course, like all consensus, it has not achieved everything that each of us would have wished but, without any doubt, we are sending back a very much better Bill than the one we received back in June.

Tribute has also been paid to the opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, had any further hopes for their future careers but, should anyone read the late-night proceedings in Hansard, we have probably now effectively ended their prospects. I pay tribute to them for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill. It reflects a view with which all of us started; that we were here not to play games or to score points off each other—some of us have known each other quite long enough to know exactly how to score points if we were so minded—but for the genuine interests of better local government and local democracy, which I think we have achieved.

My final thanks are to the Liberal Democrat team on this Bench. Recently, my noble friend Lord Greaves in private referred to my role as being that of team manager. By being the team manager I have been very much more fortunate than much better known team managers in having, certainly, an all-star team but without the all-star egos and tantrums that go with it. I put on record my thanks to my colleagues for the very effective way in which we have approached this Bill, and to the Minister for listening to the good advice that my all-star team has offered and for being so willing so often to take that advice.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is the last time I shall speak on the Bill. Perhaps I may start by expressing support for the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his inquiries. I hope that he will receive the confirmations that he sought, certainly on the basis of the helpful background note that we received from the Government today, which confirms that proceeding via development plan documents and local development orders would obviate the need for referendums.

I should like to offer my thanks to several people. Certainly, I thank the Bill Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and her team, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who has gone on to other things. I know what hard work it can be working on a Bill and what a tremendous amount of effort has been put in. It has been a listening team, which has boded well for the outcome of the Bill. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the manager, and his team, who have had a tremendous input into the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made the point that a substantial number of changes have been made to the Bill. I have not worked on a Bill that has changed quite so much during its passage through your Lordships’ House. That has been due to the power of the contributions around the Chamber. It has not been the Opposition particularly or any particular group. The Government have listened to the voices of experience and common sense. Certainly, the Cross-Benchers have played their full part and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular. I think that we all look up to him on housing matters. I thank my team and I offer big thanks also to the Bill team. Particularly at this stage of the proceedings there are a lot of last-minute amendments in order to try to get everything in shape for the conclusion of the Bill. The team has worked very hard and has always been receptive to inquiries that we have made. This has been a really good exercise in scrutiny of what, frankly, was not a great piece of legislation when it arrived in this place. It goes back to the other place in much better form. I am not quite sure how it will find the time to deal with all the amendments but I wish it well.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 114, I shall speak to the other amendments in this group. Given that they each also bear the names of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I have some expectation that they may be acceptable to your Lordships. The Bill currently includes provisions which enable the Secretary of State by order to transfer a local public service function from any person to its elected mayor. In Committee, we sought to amend that by widening its application to local authorities that operated a leader and cabinet executive model of governance. That amendment was eventually withdrawn.

Additionally, in Committee, we tabled amendments which were prompted by the Core Cities group. These amendments sought equivalent opportunities for the transfer and delegation of functions as were provided to the Mayor of London under the Bill. It was suggested that this approach had cross-party support among the Core Cities group, growing support from the Members of Parliament of the core cities and support from Ministers. In the event, these amendments were not moved on the final day in Committee. Over the Recess, the Government have taken the issue forward with the Core Cities group, hence the amendments today. They also cover the original proposals for transfers to mayors which are replaced.

Amendment 114 provides for the transfer of local public functions from a public authority to a permitted authority. A public function is a function of a public authority. A permitted authority includes a county council in England, a district council and an economic prosperity board. The transfer is achieved by an order of the Secretary of State and may not be made unless it considered that the order would promote economic development or wealth creation, or increase local accountability in relation to each local public function. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the permitted authority can exercise the function appropriately and has consented to the transfer.

Amendment 115 permits the delegation to a permitted authority of a Minister’s eligible functions, mirroring the provisions of Clause 210, which cover such delegation to the Mayor of London, and on which we touched on earlier amendments. Amendment 116 allows the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the transfer of property rights or liabilities to give effect to a transfer of functions and a delegation of a Minister’s eligible functions or their revocation.

Amendment 117 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consider any proposals for the exercise of these powers which come from a permitted authority and to establish criteria by which they must be considered. Amendment 118 crucially sets out a robust super-affirmative procedure for any order which seeks to transfer functions to a permitted authority. Amendment 119 covers definitions. Amendments 151, 161, 163 and 241 are consequential.

Core Cities is a network of the local authorities of England’s eight largest city economies outside London. It includes Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield. The cities drive their local economic areas and make a significant contribution to the national economy. They work in partnership with government to influence policy and to develop new ideas based on knowledge of what works on the ground to improve economic performance and reduce dependency. The Core Cities group has a track record of more than 15 years led by city leaders across all parties.

The powers in this amendment could be available to anywhere that meets the criteria. However, England’s core cities are the main drivers of the country’s economy outside London and the south-east. Together, their primary urban areas deliver 27 per cent of the national economy, more than London, and contain 16 million residents. The role of cities is central to delivering national economic outcomes, reducing dependency on public spending, and in driving growth, productivity and tax revenues. Supporting growth in the core cities is vital to rebalance the UK economy.

With more decentralised arrangements for governance and public finance, these cities would be able to deliver greater economic outcomes for the UK. Recent independent economic forecasts commissioned by Core Cities have demonstrated that the local enterprise partnership areas, given greater control over the drives of growth, are capable of delivering an additional 1 million jobs and £44 billion economic output over the next decade.

The Bill offers an opportunity through these amendments to create a binding narrative around other localist and decentralising policy, enabling this Government to deliver a distinctive set of urban policies and a legacy of empowered cities driving private sector growth and jobs. The Bill proposes to transfer powers from the London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency to the Mayor of London, and makes provision for further ministerial delegation. Other major economic areas need the same opportunity to be able to drive growth and prosperity for their business and residents, and for the wider economy. The country needs London to do well but, to create an equitable and multicentred national economic strategy, the same chance needs to be given to other areas that are capable of growing employment. England needs a London-plus national economic policy.

It is the intention of the Core Cities group to seek these powers for its members but it will not be restricted to the core cities and their urban areas. Any economic area that fulfils the eligibility criteria could be able to request these delegations. The overarching aim of the amendment is to drive economic growth and productivity, and reduce dependency. Now is a critical moment for economic recovery and we need to boost local investment and investor confidence. This amendment would support private sector growth and jobs; create new opportunities for efficiency, innovative finance and investment; enable distinctive urban policy and a legacy of empowered cities; ensure continued buying from private sector partners on LEPs; support the implementation of a local government resource review and further incentivise local authorities and their partners; support the implementation of enterprise zones; clarify existing routes of delegation; support double devolution to local communities; support the wider restructuring of subnational economic development architecture; create a route to delegate to further emerging governance structures; and be a significant—I suggest popular—and symbolic step towards decentralisation and localism. I beg to move.

[Lord Tope]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for moving the amendment. As he rightly said, my noble friend Lord Shipley has added his name to it and was hoping and expecting to be here to speak in support of it. He has been in Manchester all day on government business. I have just heard that he has only just got on a train in Manchester, so I suspect that he will not be here in time to contribute to this debate. However, I have a fairly good idea of what he would have said had he been here, and I speak on his behalf. As someone who has been a London councillor all his adult life, I must say that I had not expected to be speaking on behalf of Core Cities. It is a rare privilege and something I do enthusiastically because I very much support these amendments.

Both this Government and the previous Administration have made firm commitments to devolution and decentralisation. The Bill now offers an opportunity to hand decision-making powers from central to local government, working in partnership with the private sector. The Government’s stated aim is to rebalance the economy, focusing on the whole of our national economic system as well as London and the south-east, enabling other places to develop their economies to boost national growth and productivity.

Devolution has happened at different speeds in different geographies. London will receive further powers through the Bill, and the devolved Assemblies already have powers that are not available directly to cities in England. Without further decentralisation there is a risk that England’s core cities, which generate 27 per cent of England’s GVA—my noble friend Lord Shipley points out that that is more than London—and other towns and cities will be unable to perform to their full potential and support nationwide growth and enterprise. Recent independent forecasts by Oxford Economics demonstrate that the core cities’ eight local enterprise partnership areas are capable of delivering an additional 1 million jobs and £44 billion GVA over the next decade, given the tools to do so.

This enabling amendment creates a route to these tools to ministerial delegation and the transfer of public service functions for economic development and wealth creation to single and combined authorities in England. Any such actions would be subject to competency tests, including strong local governance and private sector buy-in, evidence that growth can be delivered and sound arrangements to work across administrative boundaries.

The potential of the amendment would be open to any place, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, that can demonstrate that it can pass the competency tests that the Government will set out. It will ensure that local areas have the powers and financial autonomy to deliver local solutions to their challenges, and that further legislation will not be needed to pass these powers to cities’ civic and business leaders. Any major transfers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The amendment would support private sector growth and new opportunities for investment, ensure continued buy-in from private sector partners on LEPs, support the implementation of policy to incentivise places to deliver growth, support double devolution to local communities, and be a significant step towards decentralisation.

As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, these amendments enjoy support from at least three sides of the House and, I hope, passive support from the fourth. Therefore, I am very pleased to be able to support them.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s offer of further discussions, negotiations and consideration. I think that all of us in your Lordships’ House who have taken part in the Bill over the previous five days in Committee have very much appreciated the—dare I say it?—conciliatory tone from the government Front Bench and their willingness to discuss, consider and, if agreed, make changes to the Bill at the next stage.

However, as we have just found out today when the next stage will be, I ask the noble Baroness how she envisages that we will achieve that further discussion and consideration, given that the last day in Committee will be the day on which we go into recess and the first day of Report will be the day that we come back, the intention being that Report will be completed in the two weeks in which we sit in September. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity with which these assurances and offers have been made. My concern, which I suspect will be shared on the Front Bench, is how that is going to be achieved between 20 July and 1 September, the day on which amendments have to be tabled for the first day of Report. I suspect that there is no answer to that but we have to find one.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord has just said. We increasingly have concerns about the timing of the process. We are doing everything we can to make sure that we make progress, but there is an issue with trying to resolve some of these matters when the House is in recess. Frankly, some Ministers will be away, and writing to everyone will be more difficult when officials are also likely to be away with their buckets and spades. If we want to get the Bill right, I urge the noble Baroness to consider that point.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, first, I wish to speak to the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with which we sympathise. It is not just a case of semantics and of substituting one form of words for another. For the reason that he has outlined, we agree with him that if “excessive” is used in the legislation it will inevitably end up in the question that is put to the voters in a referendum, as it would be the technical term. We are denying local authorities the right to campaign for the council tax increase that they want. If we want to approach this matter in a neutral way, the very least we can do is to remove prejudicial legislation, as the noble Lord termed it.

The Minister may well say that “excessive” is not a new term and that it is embodied in the current capping legislation. However, there is a difference between that position and what may happen in the future because the current arrangements for capping will not be put to a popular vote. Therefore, that term is effectively an internal term rather than one that would inevitably feature in the referendum question on some basis or other. For that reason, I believe that we need to recast the term that is in the legislation.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is a central point of our concern with this legislation that it is stuffed with detailed powers and that the Secretary of State has to draw back from the nominal rights that it is seeking to give to local authorities. I doubt whether the gap between finishing Committee in July—if we do—and Report in September is long enough to unpick some of the stuff that has come from our discussions today, but at least there is perhaps a longer gap than usual. Our attitude to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, depends on precisely where the Government are on this. When last Thursday we had our first canter around the issue of capping powers, it was said that all Governments of all persuasions had held to themselves a reserve power. If in fact it is the Government’s position that they are eschewing that power, we do not feel obligated to hold to the position that I think I outlined—that it is difficult for us to deny the current Government those powers if we took them in past years. If that is not one of the criteria of the Government, that point falls away. When he responds, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government see the arrangements currently included in the Bill as capping powers, whether they believe that they should have the right to hold those powers, or whether they are, by one formulation or other, happy to let local electors decide on what the appropriate level of council tax should be. If his response is, “Well, we think there should be reserve capping powers and this is what the Bill is about”, that is one thing, but if the argument is that the Bill is about making sure that electors are the final arbiters in this, that helps us in our position on the matter.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there is a question about his formulation. Under the Government’s proposition, a level of council tax, if deemed excessive, requires the authority to produce a substitute calculation. As I understand it, a substitute calculation is one that is not excessive. I suppose that most authorities in this position would compute a substitute council tax that was just a smidgen short of what the excessive level would be. I am not quite sure, on the noble Lord’s formulation, what that substitute calculation would be and what would happen in circumstances where there was a referendum, 5 per cent of the electors called for it, and they did not support the level of council tax that was proposed. What are the consequences of that? If the noble Lord could help us with that point, it would be appreciated. It is clear under the Government’s propositions what the consequences would be, but I am not quite sure what the consequences would be under the noble Lord’s formulation.

I think that this has been a very helpful debate. It is incumbent on the Minister to say whether the Government see the powers as capping powers and believe that they need them, or whether that is not their position and this is basically about letting electors decide what the appropriate or inappropriate level of council tax would be.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I suppose I can rise to speak on behalf of the only party in this House that is unencumbered by a history of support for capping, but I will try to resist too much temptation there. My name is obviously with my noble friend Lord Greaves on his amendments. I think he is right and I hope that the Government will consider very carefully that fairly simple change to wording which, as others have said, is actually very important. If these provisions are to be in Bill—like my noble friend Lord Greaves, I would rather that they were not—it is important that we have a neutral wording and not a prejudicial wording, which “excessive” must be, especially if that wording is likely to be used either as part of a referendum question or at least in support of any such referendum.

My particular reason for wanting to say a few words now is to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, both in his general and particular plea. The general plea relates to much less regulation and dictation from the Government, a message repeated throughout the Bill. It is salutary to remember that when Ministers first announced the Bill, it was greeted with a pretty widespread welcome right across local government. The aim and intention as enunciated by Ministers was, broadly speaking, welcomed. We knew that there would be some things in here that we would be less happy about, but we thought that most things we would be fairly happy about. Then we came to see the detail of the Bill and the extent to which, as others have said, if it is localism at all, it is localism top-down. It is also prescribed by ministerial regulation and it is potentially constrained by Secretary of State powers. I join the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in urging Ministers, during what will be a longer than usual gap between Committee and Report, to take courage and look seriously at whether we need to be so risk averse that we hedge everything with regulations, Secretary of State powers, and so on. I said at Second Reading that if we mean localism, we have to trust local government. Some may occasionally get it wrong, but is that a reason to legislate for the vast majority that are to be trusted and should be trusted?

I turn now to the particular of this, which is about council tax capping. I do not have to be quite as measured as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I do not have to carry that history and I understand that. It is council tax capping, as others have said. In reality, it is probably the most effective capping that a Government have ever had, because I suspect that very few, if any, local authorities will take the risk of setting what is prescribed as an excessive tax. It will be a huge risk: not just the risk of whether they can or cannot win a referendum but the cost and administrative upheaval of having to rebill later.

That seems to me to fly in the face of a fairly basic principle of localism. I have always believed that it was a fundamental democratic principle that local councillors are elected—personally, I wish that they were elected under a fairer system, but, nevertheless, they are elected —to determine the needs of their local community and to balance those needs with the level of tax that has to be raised to meet them. That is a tricky balance. Then they are accountable for their decisions to the people who elect them, the local people. We come back to the fact that if there is to be a referendum on council tax levels, it should be the local people who determine the need for a referendum, not the Secretary of State. To me, that is what localism is about, and that is why I support both the general statements of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and his particular in the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It is indeed sufficient.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Does the noble Lord have a figure for the extent to which those who are getting the benefit of the removal of the imposition of backdating under the eight-year agreement have already discharged in whole or in part their obligations?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I have several papers here but that figure is not within them. I imagine this was raised when we discussed this a year or two back. However, I will write to the noble Lord and see that a copy of the letter is placed in the Library.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and speak to Amendments 71 and 72.

The Bill will enable local authorities to return to a committee structure and, indeed, to be more free than they have been for some time to determine what governance structure they wish to have, and which best suits their particular circumstances. That is wholly to be welcomed. It is clear that the Government rightly believe that that should be a matter for the local authority in a local area rather than central government.

A number of local authorities are already working in anticipation to improve, in their eyes, their decision-making structure, particularly to enable all councillors to play a more effective part in decision making than many of us feel has been possible with the executive/scrutiny split. Indeed, I have for the past couple of months been chairing a working party for my own local authority, looking at exactly that. It proved rather more difficult than I had expected because most of my colleagues in my local authority do not remember the old committee system. They have grown up believing —rather mistakenly, in my view—that the executive/scrutiny split was the natural and normal way of doing things; whereas the old dinosaurs like me believe that there was once a rather better way that would leave them less frustrated than many of them are in their role on the local committees.

All of that is to be welcomed. On Monday evening, I will present these proposals to my council group in the hope that they will be acclaimed. However, I think that they will initially be met with some puzzlement: “Are we really there to make decisions?”. “Well, yes, there were another 44 of you elected who ought to have a part in the decision-making process, because that is what you were elected for”. Hopefully all of that will happen but, as things stand, I then have to break the news to them that, desirable though all this is, and much as though the Government are happy for all of this to happen, none of it can happen for another three years. The Bill says that none of this can be introduced until after the next elections. In the case of London boroughs, that is 2014. For those authorities that have only this year had whole-council elections it will be a further four years.

If the Government believe it is right for these things to happen, I can see no reason why, once an authority, through the proper process, has agreed what it wants to do, it should not implement that now. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Government. I shall not challenge the Minister to explain why she feels that in London—in her own authority perhaps—there needs to be a three-year gestation period, or in other areas a four-year period, while we all wait.

Some authorities, some quite well known to the Minister and some certainly known to me—it will possibly happen more so in my own authority—have de facto set up a committee system already. The committees meet and de facto make recommendations, but in fact the executive, as it is legally required to do, meets immediately afterwards for no more than five minutes simply to rubber-stamp decisions made by the committees. That must be a nonsense. At the moment, it is a necessary nonsense, as that is what the law requires, but for us to continue in that ridiculous state for another three or four years makes no sense at all.

I hope that the Minister will be able to accept our amendments—it would be an unusual victory for me to achieve—or at least be able to express sympathy with them and say that she will come back on Report with something to give effect to them. It is quite important that we get an indication that this will happen on Report, or that it will not happen, because many of us will be looking to implement the changes from the next annual council meeting in May. It so happens that my authority is well advanced with this but others may perhaps only just be starting to think about it or may not even yet have realised that they can think about the changes. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have sympathy with these amendments and look forward to the Minister's reply about why there should be this proposed three-year wait. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, talked with some affection about the committee structure. I was leader of Luton Borough Council at the time when we went from a committee structure to a leader and executive structure. My experience was that when you are in control, the leader and executive arrangement is particularly helpful. In 2003, we ended up with a hung council and, although we were the largest party, there was a Lib Dem-Conservative coalition which appointed Lib Dems to the executive. Being on the receiving end of that, we were somewhat less enthusiastic, but I still remain committed to it. I think that the best route is to have a leader and an executive.

One thing that was lost with the committee structure was the opportunity for new councillors, particularly younger councillors, to get involved with the cut and thrust of political debate because the structure and role of scrutiny committees are different. I think an opportunity to learn through that route and to have that debate was missed. We support the right for councils to choose and to revert to a committee structure, if that is what they want. On that basis, it seems that there is no great justification in waiting three years, but the Minister may be able to convince us. Subject to that, we support the amendments.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, in moving the amendment, to which I have added my name, my noble friend made it clear that it is a probing amendment. It might therefore be that the Minister is not about to accept it. If that proves to be the case, I am conscious that the Minister has received considerable advice from behind her that she should not attempt to define sustainable development now or at any time in the future. Therefore, perhaps she could confirm that the Government intend, in the not very distant future, to publish their definition of sustainable development, a definition that will subsequently appear in the national planning policy framework document. If she can confirm that, can she also confirm that it will at least reflect the balanced approach that the amendment seeks to achieve?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on giving us an early opportunity, during the course of the Bill, to debate this very important issue. We agree that it is important to enshrine, at an appropriate point in the Bill, a definition of sustainable development and the principles that he has outlined in the amendment. We agree with the definition and with the principles that he has set out. I anticipated that we would have this debate a little later when we got to Part 5 of the Bill, but important points have been made about this not being just about narrow planning; there is a broader dimension to it.

I agree with what the noble Lord said in moving the amendment. There are concerns about sustainable development being sidelined by the Government. He referenced the Budget pronouncements. Clause 124 could be a change in the balance of the assessment of sustainable development, and we have a lack of clarity over the NPPF; indeed, the advisory group’s draft has moved us some way away from what the previous Government had accepted and which I thought was generally accepted as sustainable development.

With some hesitation, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that sustainable development is a meaningless concept. The fact that we may have had 1,000 years of growth generally in the economy and growing prosperity is fine, but are there not judgments to be made along the way about what that has done to the environment? Certainly in latter years, has not that growth often been achieved by recognising that you have to balance the impact, for example on the environment? I do not believe that it is a meaningless concept.

I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True, about the framing of the amendment, and I shall come on to that in a moment. There is a real risk that you create a lawyers' paradise. One of the assessments of well-being powers, and why they were not better used, was that lawyers, who were very cautious, got involved and that that precluded the use of the power more extensively than was anticipated at the time. I therefore very much agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter in his approach to sustainable development, and with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.

When thinking about the Opposition’s response to this amendment, I considered how it sits with the local authority’s duty to prepare community strategies. That is set down in the Local Government Act 2000. There has hitherto been a requirement to prepare community strategies for improving economic, social and environmental well-being and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. I asked the DCLG whether that obligation still exists. It does, but perhaps the Minister will confirm the Government’s intention to repeal the duty to prepare a sustainable community strategy. Instead, the Government have set down light-touch, best-value statutory guidance, on which they are consulting. The consultation document is extremely interesting, and shows about four pages of rubric on one page of a draft definition of “best value statutory guidance”. Only one sentence potentially touches on sustainability. It states:

“Under the duty of best value, therefore, authorities should consider overall value, including environmental and social value, when reviewing service provision”—

in place of the existing obligation to have sustainable community strategies.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he wanted something that ran throughout the Bill, but I do not believe his drafting achieves that. Specifically, it states:

“A local authority shall exercise the power conferred by section 1”,

which is the general power. Again, analysis of the well-being power showed that it was not used in preference to statutory powers that local authorities may have. If we saw that replicated with the general power, in a sense what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve here would not capture that.

I understand that this is a probing amendment, and we support its thrust. We certainly want to see those definitions in the Bill and are happy to work with the noble Lord to achieve some refinement to the approach set down in his amendment.

Local Government Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie of Luton

Wednesday 30th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I begin, as I always do, and as I did when we debated the orders on 22 March, by declaring my personal interest as a councillor in a unitary authority, which is a role that I have had for more than 35 years. On 22 March I said—and I am very happy to repeat it—that I am a very strong believer in the benefits of unitary government. I need no convincing of that. That is the position from which I started when I moved the fatal Motion on 22 March and it is the position that I continue to hold. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether the Liberal Democrats support this Bill wholeheartedly. My answer, as our spokesperson, is an unequivocal yes.

Most of the debate today has been a rehearsal of the debate that we had on 22 March. The argument has been almost entirely confined to Norwich and Exeter and the perceived benefits there; very little has been said about the effects on the wider communities in Norfolk and Devon. That was part of the argument that we had three months ago, which is still relevant. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to repeat all the arguments that I set out on why we felt it necessary to move the fatal Motion and why we so strongly opposed those orders. In summary, I understand very well why some but not all of the councillors in Norwich and Exeter wanted unitary status. I know that they believed that what was on offer was not as good as they hoped, but it was all that was on offer, and they took a view that it was better than nothing. I understand that, but we have to take a wider perspective and consider the effects on the wider communities, which is exactly what we did.

I shall summarise why we were opposed to these things. First, with my much more limited knowledge of Norwich and Exeter—but still some knowledge, as I was born and partly grew up in Devon—that they were the wrong boundaries and the wrong proposals. I do not believe that it is in anybody’s interests to have something that is supposedly better than nothing. If you make that sort of mistake—and I believe very strongly that those proposals were a mistake—then you live with its consequences for years and years.

That takes me to the next reason why I felt that they were wrong; the timing was completely wrong. I do not just mean the appalling way in which it was brought in within days of a general election. I mean the slightly longer timing, to which I think I referred on 22 March, of what was clearly then the financial climate into which we were heading. I think I said, and certainly believed, that the recession in the public sector had not then started. It has started now. That is no surprise to anyone; we all knew that, in local government and elsewhere, we were going to be facing a very hard financial climate for the next three or four years, at least. That was emphatically not the time to be going into what would inevitably be, at least in the short term, the very expensive, emotionally draining, challenging and uncertain times of a comprehensive structural reorganisation. The timing really could not have been worse.

I understand why the timing of the proposal came so late, with all the long process that had been going on. Nevertheless, we got to where we got to and within days of the Dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election the Government came forward with these proposals, to which others have referred in detail. Of all the many warnings given to the Government about why they were wrong—from this House, the Civil Service and all sorts of quarters—let us remind ourselves that one was a statement from the Permanent Secretary to the Minister, in seeking that written direction, that the Minister had already had strong and clear advice of the very strong probability that the legal challenge, which was known to be coming, would be successful—and so it has proved to be. None of this should come as any surprise.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but he referred to the question that I posed in my presentation of whether the Lib Dems were supporting this. In fact, the question that I posed to the Minister was whether, because the 2007 Act is not amended by this provision, it leaves open the possibility of future invitations for unitary authorities. My question was whether those invitations are likely to be forthcoming within the course of this Parliament, and if the answer to that was no, whether that was something which had Lib Dem support. Given the noble Lord’s comments about these being the wrong boundaries and the timing being wrong, I should be interested in his view on that.

[Lord Tope]

It is probably inappropriate for me to comment on the Minister’s answer before she has given it. I may well have another opportunity to do that. Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord indirectly. As a believer in unitary government, I really believe and would expect the Minister herself, having been a London borough councillor and council leader for many years, to believe that this is absolutely not the time for local authorities of whatever structure to be distracted into what is almost always the very expensive, energy-sapping distraction of worrying about what I call their democratic structure—where their ward and council boundaries are, and all that sort of thing.

The concentration for local authorities now needs to be on what services they should be delivering, how and with whom they should be delivering them and their relationship with other local authorities, whether in a two-tier structure or with neighbouring authorities in a single-tier structure. Their concentration should and must be on many more shared services and much more co-operative working. If I may give a sort of answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, before I have heard the Minister’s answer, my advice to all my colleagues in local government will be: that is where to concentrate, not on having rather difficult and fruitless arguments on possible restructurings which may or may not happen, and probably will not. That is the wrong priority.

The other point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which I really did not follow, was about democratic legitimacy. I understand entirely why, having moved those orders in the first place, he may at least be sad about the Bill. He may well disagree, as he obviously does, with the view of the two government parties. However, I simply could not follow the democratic legitimacy argument. The Conservative Party made very clear before the election that it would not proceed with unitary proposals and, in particular, would revoke these orders as soon as possible if it was successful in the general election. That was repeated in the debate in this House. It could not have been a clearer commitment.

I led, somewhat controversially, a fatal Motion. Not everyone felt able to support it. I understand that. However, we could not have made our position much clearer before the general election. I should have thought we would be much more open to criticism, as a coalition Government of two parties so committed, had we not acted quickly to implement what we were saying—had we allowed that uncertainty to go on, and the implementation committees and so on to meet and continue as though nothing had happened. If that criticism was being made it would be wholly legitimate, but to suggest that we do not have a democratic mandate for doing this is somewhat bizarre. In saying that, I remind the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that, yes, Norwich elected a Conservative MP but it also elected a Liberal Democrat MP.