Localism Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, Ministers already have the power to delegate functions to the mayor and the London Development Agency under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that it is right that Ministers continue to have such a power once the LDA is abolished. Through the London reforms in this Bill, the GLA will be gaining significant new powers and responsibilities, including activities from the LDA, enabling London itself to meet the strategic challenges facing the capital.

There may be instances in future where it makes sense for the mayor to play an active role in the delivery of national programmes, through a power of delegation, to ensure that these programmes can be better tailored to London’s specific circumstances. However, we are conscious of the concerns expressed in the other place about this power and the risk that it could marginalise the role of London boroughs, and of the amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friends Lord True and Lord Jenkin, which we did not have time to discuss. In response to these concerns, we are proposing through government Amendment 105 to require a Minister to consult London boroughs and the London Assembly before the use of this power to delegate functions. This will ensure an opportunity for debate and dialogue within London about the appropriateness of any proposed delegation of a ministerial function to the mayor prior to the delegation being made.

Amendment 106, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord True, would go further than this by requiring a Minister to consult boroughs specifically about whether the function could be more appropriately and effectively conducted at a more local level and then to lay a Statement before Parliament if boroughs believe that they are better placed than the mayor to undertake the function. While I fully understand my noble friend’s reasoning, I do not believe that such detailed stipulation is necessary. It should be readily apparent from the statutory consultation whether boroughs have concerns about the mayor exercising a function that they are better placed to undertake. If the function was of sufficient importance, one could see Members of both Houses wanting to raise the issue with the relevant Minister.

I reassure my noble friend that this Government have striven to ensure broad consensus between the mayor, the Assembly and the boroughs about the future direction of London’s governance and, if I may say so, it is exemplified by the reforms in this Bill. We will continue to do so in future. It is vital that both tiers of London government—the GLA and the boroughs—fully accept each other’s democratic mandate and remit and that there is consensus about any use of this power. I therefore ask my noble friend not to move his Amendment 106 in favour of the Government’s Amendment 105, which I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, as the Minister said, I have Amendment 106 in this group. I listened very carefully to what he said and I have had the opportunity of talking about this matter with my noble friend Lady Hanham. None the less, I must press him a little because, as he acknowledged in his remarks, we discussed the matter contained in this amendment earlier today: it is the localist deficit that remains in London as a result of this legislation. I of course acknowledge the good relations between the mayor, the boroughs and the other London institutions, but these good relations are not fixed for all time. My amendment addresses future arrangements and future occasions on which the Government may decide that they wish to delegate functions. I believe that, where possible, a truly localist Government would wish to delegate those functions to the most local level practical and in London, in many cases, that will be London boroughs, although we have heard many times in these debates that Ministers would like powers to be delegated even below the level of boroughs and principal authorities.

Localism Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I, too, support the role of councillors and their engagement in these processes, but I do not think that this is an either/or. My name is against Amendments 69, 71 and 72. If people do not wish to go to the councillor for any reason, surely they should have the opportunity to go directly to the ombudsman service. My interest is that I have been on the receiving end of the ombudsman’s judgment, complaints having been made about organisations that I have chaired and run, and I think the ombudsman service is great. It resolves complaints that have been running sometimes for ages; the filing cabinet is full of going backwards and forwards, the ombudsman sorts it out, the decision is final. It is a professional service. The British and Irish Ombudsman Association thinks that an essential ingredient in any ombudsman service is that the consumer has a right of direct access to that service.

I chair the Council of the Property Ombudsman, which looks after the private sector, separate from the arrangements for the Housing Ombudsman in the social housing sector. In the private sector, of course, tenants can go direct to the ombudsman; they do not have to go to a council, an MP or a tenant panel. That system works extremely well. I have watched the process from both sides of the fence. Ombudsman services really work and direct access to them seems an important ingredient.

We have one example. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said he did not think that there were any examples of there being a bureaucratic filter of this kind, but I think the Parliamentary Ombudsman is the last outpost of this approach. It applied to the Local Government Ombudsman but was scrapped as it was found to be unworkable and unnecessary, but with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, going through your MP remains. However, Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, says:

“The MP filter delays the resolution of complaints by the ombudsman and even deters some people from taking their complaints to the ombudsman at all”.

I think it likely, as a result of the consultation now going on, that the filter will be dropped in that last case of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. So let us by all means engage councillors and encourage people to go to their councillor—sometimes that can be the best kind of mediation and local way of organising things—but let us allow people, if they wish, to go direct to the ombudsman service. It is there as a professional body and it sorts things out.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I also declare an interest as a local councillor. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that my aged aunt, who has a great fear of spiders, says, “In September and October never talk about a spider, otherwise you will talk one up”, and one invariably comes up. I heard what he said about the contributions of Members on this side to these debates. When he makes such comments, I have to point out that we made very little progress with groups yesterday and there may be some connection—not with the Conservatives but with other Members in the Chamber.

I wish to follow very strongly what my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Tope said. I have visited a number of authorities and it is true, sadly, that in many authorities where there has been large-scale voluntary transfer, there is a growing disjunction between the council side and RSLs. As I see it, aspects of this proposal from the Government may be designed to break that down and to reinforce the role of a councillor. In my authority we have introduced a tenants’ champion system in order to encourage people to use the local resource of the council as a first resource for complaint and redress against social landlords. That is desirable. Surely in the spirit of this Bill things should be settled as locally as they can be. There are all forms of bureaucracy and the ombudsman system in itself is potentially that. I agree that tenants may not need a filter, but in some circumstances they may need a local champion.

I am not quite so absolutist about these proposals as some others who have spoken. However, I hope that my noble friend will listen to the debate, particularly to the points made by my noble friend Lord Tope, and see whether some middle ground can be found that will enable tenants to have this recourse, but perhaps in the normal course of events to encourage people to seek to settle matters locally.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on Report so I should declare a few interests. I am an elected member of a district council in Lancashire, a vice-president of the LGA, a vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and a member of the access, conservation and environment group of the British Mountaineering Council. Those are the interests I can think of that might come up during Report. If I have any others, I shall declare them later.

I apologise for having to nip out of the Chamber for the latter part of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the beginning of the speech by my noble friend Lord Tope. I can assure everyone that I probably agree with every word that they said, even when I was not here, on the basis of what they have said otherwise. We had a glowing account from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about how wonderful the complaints and resolution system is in her housing association.

Localism Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I agree with the sentiments of what everyone has said so far. We must revitalise town centres. We have all learnt from the mistakes of out-of-town shopping, with its free car parking. In Fakenham, in Norfolk, when a new shopping centre opened about 15 or 20 years ago, within six months, 26 town-centre shops shut. That was very sad, and it is very difficult to get them back again. The other mistake made is that too many councils charge for town-centre car parking. That is daft. If you want to encourage people to use the town centre, make it as easy as possible for them to pop in there, go to the bank and then go into the butcher, baker and candlestick maker without any car parking charges. That is an irritant. Those who charge are being very shortsighted.

[Lord True]

My Lords, if my noble friend wants to come to our high street, he can have 30 minutes of free parking. The Mill Road story, to which my noble friend referred, is extremely interesting. Unfortunately, the Tesco Express, which was its original focus, was successful. There are defects with all the amendments before the Committee; I hope that my noble friend will not feel that all of them have to be addressed.

I was very encouraged by what was said in the other place. One difficulty is that not everyone has the same view of vitality. My predecessor as leader of my council from another party said that he would be delighted if he heard that a Tesco was opening in his area, because it would bring people to that shopping area. We must address head-on the nature of the retail multiple and the manner of the high street. Can my noble friend assure us that before we finish examining the Bill, when we have seen the national framework, Parliament will give local authorities real power to deal with the problems which my noble friends, Lord Cotter and Lord Greaves, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised? That is all I ask for at this stage, not a detailed commitment. I hope that my noble friend can give that assurance.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I warmly endorse the thrust of the three amendments. It is clearly desirable to have a proper planning framework to encourage retail diversity. However, although that is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition of ensuring that we get retail diversity. There are other significant considerations, particularly financial considerations and other policies which may militate against the achievement of the aspirations of the amendments—with which I entirely concur.

I can cite examples from my experience. When I was chairman of the development committee in Newcastle, I tried to persuade our partners in the city centre shopping centre—we were partners because we owned a substantial stake in it—to diversify the offer to try to get away from chainstores, which were pretty much all we had there, and provide for some niche retailing. Despite the fact that we were significant shareholders, I was totally unable to persuade them to do that.

In another example of the Tesco influence, in the west end of Newcastle adjoining a street in an ethnically mixed area with a lot of little local shops and one or two other retailers, Tesco has secured planning permission to build a largish store on the site of a former hospital. The hospital is very keen to get the money from it, for obvious reasons. I am afraid that council officials supported the recommendation, and indeed an inspector upheld the recommendation. So we have a Tesco store not far from the town centre that is likely to do serious damage to local shopping.

I fear there are policies that might encourage that kind of trade-off, where you are effectively getting a financial benefit—in that case for the hospital but in other cases for the local authority itself. Most of us welcome the proposal for tax increment financing but that puts a premium on promoting development that will generate significant rateable value on which you are then going to borrow. There will be a temptation, frankly, to push that kind of development at the expense of the kind of development that these amendments are interested in promoting, which is less likely to contribute hugely in terms of rates and certainly is more difficult to put together. So you potentially have a policy that might militate against the thrust of these amendments.

We are also now going to get a range of enterprise zones. I do not know if the Minister can tell us whether there will be any restrictions this time round on retail developments in the enterprise zones. As I understand it, it is pretty much carte blanche for whoever develops these zones. Again, I speak from experience—and there are other Members of your Lordships’ House who will know the kind of damage that was done to city centre shopping in places such as Newcastle, Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham by some very substantial out-of-town shopping developments in enterprise zones. Enterprise zones were originally designed to promote investment in manufacturing industry and so on. It would be unfortunate if again they were to be captured by the interests of large retail developers, thereby threatening diversity in existing centres.

These amendments are entirely on the right lines and I hope that the Government will consider them very seriously. However, I also ask them to recognise that there is a need to look at the other policies that impinge on this area and try to ensure that there is a sensible look across the piece at the implications of a range of policies on the objectives that these amendments seek to promote. Perhaps that is a debate for another occasion but I do not think that we can look at these things in isolation. We need to bring them together, and I hope that these amendments may help us start to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

Before my noble friend sits down, may I say that I was disappointed by his absolutely granite remarks about supermarkets? There are serious issues around what is a vital, viable, sustainable and diverse high street. Many factors are involved, both economic and social, and I do not think that Parliament can for ever lag behind public opinion on this matter. We all acknowledge and respect small shops in high streets, but the reality is that, up and down the country, people believe that our high streets are being systematically parasitised in a property grab by a small number of large businesses, which frankly do not worry too much about the profitability of individual sites.

I do not know whether the answer lies in this Bill or in planning, but I would submit that in social terms Parliament must address this matter with some seriousness and urgency. The nature of our high streets is changing. I believe that it is changing too fast and, as I have asked in the course of our discussions on the Bill, we should at least look to see whether there is a way we can do slightly more to protect the diversity of our high streets. That may be through giving grants and setting up business districts, but we do not have the resources to do that kind of thing. However, if we could bar the gate to one or two predators, I believe that that would be extremely helpful.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, before the Minister responds to my noble friend, perhaps I may say that I am certainly a great advocate of variety and choice. However, it worries me that it is actually the shoppers themselves who do not support independent shops. That is why those shops have been squeezed out of many places. We need to resolve that in a philosophical way, and I am not sure how that can be done within this Bill.

I understand the point that has been made all around the Committee and I am sympathetic to it, but what we see, particularly in smaller towns, is that people will use the shops in a minor way but continue to do their bulk buying in a supermarket because that suits them better. This is the dilemma we face. Occasionally I think we ought to put our feet where our mouth is, if I can use such a dreadfully vulgar expression. I am not sure how this is to be done in a Bill. I should like to add a word of caution. I am a huge supporter of independents and we use our local shops whenever we can, but we are lucky in that our village is quite large and still has a variety of shops. In some areas, the shops have disappeared, so the nearest shop is probably in fact a supermarket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment, prompted by the National Housing Federation. It specifically focuses on an authority that has not adopted its local plan document and provides that this cannot constitute a reason for refusing planning permission. In a sense, this picks up just part of the federation’s proposition, which sets this in the context of a statutory definition of sustainable development and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We have already discussed definitions of sustainable development and whether they should be enshrined in primary legislation, and we touched on the Government’s draft presumption in favour of sustainable development. We will doubtless return to these points on Report.

In the mean time, we have the demise of regional spatial strategies, no agreement—as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said last week—to preserve for at least a limited period related policies that are not directly incorporated into LDPs, and no draft official NPPF. Perhaps the Minister could spell out for us how things will work when local planning authorities have not yet adopted a local development plan. It must be right that the absence of a plan cannot automatically be used to deny an application for planning permission. However, is the Minister’s position that, where a local plan is not yet complete, it is necessary to look just at the NPPF, given that the Government have heralded this as a framework that sets out government priorities only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so? Do they not envisage distinctive local and indeed neighbourhood issues that are clearly outwith the NPPF?

Clearly the answer to all this is for local authorities to get on and approve their LDPs. However, we should acknowledge that they are faced with challenges on resources—challenges faced generally by local authorities—that are not made easier by the requirement to support neighbourhood planning and not helped by the hiatus caused by the actions of the Secretary of State when coming into office. Nevertheless, I stress that this is a probing amendment, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this issue.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am conscious of the need to make haste and I am perhaps making too much. There are a lot of “nots” in this amendment. Obviously where local development frameworks are in place, local authorities are consistently working on development plan documents. In any clarification that may be being made, we would not want to arrive at a situation in which an emerging policy of an authority, which is traditionally given some weight by planning committees and often by the inspector, is disallowed because the final plan has not yet been formally adopted after the hearing by the inspector. I do not expect my noble friend to respond in detail on that point, but it is an extremely important point because emerging DPDs are very often the reflection of the latest thinking of local people and a response to localist pressure.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is quite right in moving this probing amendment to emphasise that the preparation of plans is a great challenge for local authorities. It is central to the Localism Bill and is certainly very important for them. We believe in a timely plan-led system, free from unnecessary targets imposed by central government. We trust local councils and their communities to choose to prepare plans where they feel that they need to shape development in their areas as quickly as they can. This is why we have been careful to retain the basic process of developing local plans, including public examination, and we are trying to make them work better in the interests of transparency and accountability.

The noble Lord’s amendment, which I accept is probing, would penalise councils without adopted plans in place by the time the Bill is enacted. I think we would all accept that this would not achieve good, responsible local planning. Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, because we agree that councils should get on with their plans. Our presumption in favour of sustainable development would be the right tool to ensure that planning applications are considered. We are clear that the presumption should be that councils should say yes to development if their plans are out of date. While we share the previous Government’s ambition that the plans should not be delayed, we know that their approach of top-down deadlines imposed in the 2004 Act just did not work.

In addition, the amendment also comes across as an unnecessarily centralising measure. Instead we want to use positive incentives, such as the new homes bonus and the community infrastructure levy, to encourage councils to plan properly. We are clear that councils will be expected to say yes to development where their plans are out of date. There is a steady flow of plans coming through and we do not believe that legislating for deadlines is the right approach. The aforementioned NPPF and a policy presumption in favour of sustainable development are the right tools. Together they are more immediate and effective levers that will incentivise the same behaviour.

The amendment would also undermine a fundamental part of the system by removing the discretion from the decision-maker to determine what issues should be material considerations to an individual case. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is in a position to withdraw his amendment.

Localism Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I apologise to my noble friend for missing his opening remarks. I referred to this on an earlier amendment so I will not labour the point, but I agree strongly with the points made by my noble friend Lord Tope. In these circumstances the councillor power needs further examination, and I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to consider that. On the question of area and ward boundaries which my noble friend referred to, the reality is that, in many cases, as real localism emerges, people will choose areas that do not coincide with the boundaries of wards. We as an authority accept that we are defining areas in terms of what local people have chosen as their communities. Indeed, the most recent referendum held in our authority did not follow ward boundaries but community boundaries, and people participated in it enthusiastically. I do not want to press my noble friend further on the point, but the language of the “electoral area” used in the Bill, whether at this point or elsewhere, could create serious obstacles to the actual implementation of localism in the way that communities would choose. I hope that my noble friend will consider that further.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I cannot quite understand where we are, which is why I got up before. Earlier this week I moved Amendments 125 and 126, which provided that a councillor could not call for a referendum unless he had a petition signed by 5 per cent of the electorate. I have before me the Hansard report where the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said:

“I believe that the safeguard we have in place—that, following a request from a member, a referendum may not be held unless the full council has resolved that it be held”.—[Official Report, 28/6/11; col. 1746.]

Surely that is the check. I admit that it is far better than the one we proposed, which was getting 5 per cent of the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will doubtless have expected that the words “parish council” might cause this particular old pike to rise from the depths. I see where he is coming from, although I initially felt that this could loosely be reclassified as “Son of Clause 56 stand part”. I appreciate that he has made a distinction which prevents me from pressing that in particular. I will leave most of my comments for the question on Clause 56, because there is a generic process about parishes and how they fit into the thing.

I am a little concerned about inserting the principle regarding parish into something that relates to principal authorities. I question whether it rightly sits there, bearing in mind that the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State can make a separate set of provisions for parish councils. It seems to me that there are very good reasons for that, because we have to be rather careful about what template we are using for the purposes of referendums, so I question whether the insertion of the reference to a parish here is the right one, unless the intention is to eliminate Clause 56 altogether.

[Lord True]

My Lords, on this point there is of course a fundamental difference between how parishes are viewed inside and outside urban areas. I understand all the misgivings as far as rural parishes are concerned and do not wish to follow along that line, but it would perhaps not be wise to add my noble friend's suggestion to the Bill. I point out that in the recent referendum in my own authority which I referred to, the area chosen for it was in fact the boundary of a parish because that ran across more than one ward. It is not right to write that into statute but it reinforces the point that I and other noble Lords made earlier: that some power to enable local authorities to define an area, which might or might not be a parish, would be a useful broad, localist and permissive power. I would not favour writing it into the Bill in this way but it may be one of the instruments and measures that a local authority ought to be allowed to choose other than a ward.

[Lord Taylor of Goss Moor]

My Lords, I have a particular interest in this amendment because parishes in many rural communities are far more relevant than local authority or council boundaries. They are not only historic but often relate to particular communities in a way that local authority wards do not, certainly in my part of the country. That is because wards are driven by numbers, not by community. This seems a good and proper issue to raise. There is of course already the power for parishes to call their own referendums, so the query might be whether this is necessary because, if a community wanted it, one might argue that there is provision for it already.

However, the legislation here is making reference to particular issues relating to local authorities. Frankly, I therefore see more relevance to allowing a power in relation to a parish as a community than to having specific reference to the electoral division for the primary local authority. I would hope that the Minister can respond positively to the principle here, whatever the means might be to achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rennard]

Briefly, no problem seems to occur in elections. The paid staff of parties, as the noble Lord will well know, take part in elections, but it has never been considered an activity of paid canvassing. The activity of a large organisation like a big business deciding it wants to get something through and employing people specifically to sign the petition would be of a rather different order.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I fear that I rather agree with the noble Lord opposite. There is always a risk in creating a new criminal offence—or a new offence in any case. I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment of my noble friends. The example of a local newspaper—“Tear off a strip, sign our petition”— which might be delivered by paid delivery potentially gets one into quite difficult areas. The paid deliverer could actually be deemed to be collecting signatures for a petition.

There might be a perfectly innocent occasion where somebody says to a child or young person, “Come along and help me collect some signatures, and we’ll buy you what you have been wanting for some time”. That is a perfectly normal kind of thing that goes on in family life, not just in politics. I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lord Rennard about big business, as he puts it, but we may be creating another regulatory hammer if we went down this road. It would not be helpful and might have unintended consequences.

So far as the other amendments are concerned, my noble friend can obviously answer for the Front Bench. I do not want to go into my views on the Electoral Commission as that would detain us for too long, but at least Clause 54(7) states:

“Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”.

I would have thought that the Electoral Commission was capable of giving the Secretary of State advice on the kind of matters that my noble friend Lord Greaves has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I would also like to warn against this. Although I have some sympathy with some of the amendments spoken to by my noble friend, I think that Amendment 128A could cause great difficulties. As is emerging in this Committee, I am rather more enthusiastic about or tolerant of referendums than my noble friend perhaps appears to be. The reality is that when local authorities are being forced to restrain their spending, as they are at the moment—in our case £30 million was taken out of the budget—the last line,

“taking into account the resources available to the authority”,

would mean that, at a time of contraction, a local authority would effectively be able to say no to any referendum on the general basis that, “We can't afford what you're asking for”. That could be used by some authorities simply to say, “We can't do any of it, so bye-bye”.

Equally, it would be quite difficult to resist calls for referendums, per contra—if ever that day comes; I do not expect to see it in the foreseeable future—when there are more resources coming into local authorities. I would be nervous about that and I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Let us say, for example, that a community wished to see its local school expand but it was not possible at that time. Why would it not be reasonable for them to put their case forward in a referendum and put a marker down for some time in the future? I could not follow my noble friend on that amendment.

I think that Amendment 126CA, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and states,

“determined to be so by the principal local authority”,

is also in this group. I must tell my noble friend that I have some sympathy with this amendment as it emerged in earlier discussions. This is linked to the power that we discussed for individual councillors or pairs of councillors to launch referendums. Unless the local authority is able to determine what is a local matter to that authority, we could perversely be creating a situation where, for example, in its standing orders the local authority forbids discussion of the wars, perils and plagues around the world and yet a member of the council who wishes to have that matter discussed could use the referendum power to say, “Let’s have a referendum on this subject”. They might get some support and it could be a way of getting round it.

Again in the cause of localism, it should be open to the local authority to determine in every respect the way in which matters to be discussed impact on it, either directly or indirectly through a referendum. It should be left to the local authority at least to be able to have enough influence to align the mechanisms with a simple, coherent definition of what is a local matter. Apart from my liking for localism, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, may have at least a useful argument there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best]

My Lords, Amendment 128B is in my name. I do not think that we have given the Government enough credit for the amendment that we heard of earlier today, because that seemed to me to satisfy, if not entirely—I want to dwell on that—a good deal of the misgivings that we have had about referendums applying to the world of planning. We now have an amendment that will mean that planning applications are taken out of the reach of petitions and referendums. That is an enormous difference from where we were yesterday. I want to place on record my appreciation to the Government for taking that forward. It means that another laboriously prepared speech of mine is now redundant, but the amendment is extremely welcome.

Our hesitations about where we have got to are as follows. We understand that discretion is there for local authorities not to go ahead with referendums if there is a statutory process that gives members of the public opportunities to make representations and a statutory right of appeal or of investigation through a review. However, although that clearly applies to individual planning applications—great stuff—does that apply to all of the processes of preparing local development plans? I think that it must cover the preparation of the local development frameworks. If it did not cover the local authority preparing its local development plan, that would be disastrous. Throughout local government, we are already way behind in getting those local development frameworks undertaken. The abolition of regional spatial strategies means that we will be in limbo if local authorities do not have their own local development plans. We must get on with that. It would be incredibly difficult for the Government to pursue their growth agenda and do the good things that they want to do in terms of the development of renewable energy and the development of new homes if the threat of referendums was hanging over the creation of local development plans.

Beyond that, there are supplementary planning documents. They may not have the full panoply of examination in public and independent inspection in all cases. For removal of doubt, it would be better to have an amendment such as that in my name or in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that takes the whole of the planning scene out of the referendum process. If we cannot, can we at least have firm reassurance that the process of producing local development plans, with the supplementary elements that go with them—the whole of that process—will be excluded by this excellent amendment?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am sorry to strike a discordant note, but I strongly disagree with aspects of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Best, in relation to parts of the planning system. We discussed this briefly earlier, and I will not reiterate my remarks then.

My noble friend Lord Taylor undertook to write to me about referendums where a London borough, in the case I gave, may have set up an indicative planning brief but the higher, regional authority intervened with an alternative proposal. I think it is entirely justifiable—indeed, desirable—that there should be a referendum in those cases. It would be most unfortunate if the legislation ruled out such an eventuality. It would disfranchise people on some of the most basic and fundamental issues that affect their lives and the nature of how their community develops.

I certainly could not support an amendment ranging as widely as that of my noble friend Lord Lucas. “Planning matters” is wording far too widely cast. Of course I agree with the point established in Committee; I think that most noble Lords agreed that we do not want to encourage referendums on individual planning applications. I also have very grave doubt about how far we should cast it in relation to local development plans and frameworks.

We have a local development framework at the moment, which it is clear that the public do not find satisfactory. As neighbourhood planning develops, a referendum might well be desired by people or wished for by the council. That is a useful device in an age of localism in involving people in such fundamental issues.

I hope that my noble friend will resist casting that constriction on the right of people to be heard on the neighbourhood and place in which they live. Nothing to my mind is more fundamental in the 21st century to the role of a local authority than the spirit of place. People’s opportunity to express their view about the nature of their place in terms of the broad planning framework under which they live in their communities seems to be absolutely vital. It would send a hard and difficult message if the Committee were to constrict that opportunity in the way suggested by the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for assisting me. Knitting it into the neighbourhood planning proposals is clearly going to be important as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, was worried not so much about his car-parking charges as the fines when he did not pay them, if I heard him correctly. At any rate, perhaps one may lead to the other. Our amendments put in place a framework for councils to decide to refuse a referendum in certain cases. The issues raised by noble Lords clearly illustrate how difficult it would be to compile a list. This is why we have adopted our approach in our recommendations generally about how councils may determine particular referendum petitions.

[Lord True]

May I briefly assist the Committee and perhaps my noble friend if I made it clear that Clause 47(6), whether we like the word “vexatious” or not, helps to guard against some of the fears of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Best? If there were a case where hundreds and thousands of people had been involved in indicative planning and the process of planning, clearly a referendum that then came along from a group would potentially be vexatious. A local authority could resist that. Maybe “vexatious” is not the right word, but what concerns me is the case that I cited of a regional body, London, interfering with a lower body where there has been no effective consultation, it was a choice between two visions of the future and there has not been adequate public involvement. It might in those cases not be vexatious to have a referendum. It might be illuminating and that is the difference. Perhaps in considering this, my noble friend might want to look at the application of Clause 47(6) and how that would bite on these potential powers.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Again my noble friend makes a valuable contribution and points out how complex this is going to be in terms of definition. I would like to thank him for his contribution and my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling the original amendment which has given rise to this debate. I hope I can persuade him to withdraw it, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wants to come back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the amendments in this group need not detain us for long. They have been tabled to probe the appropriateness of the word “misleading” as the criterion a local authority can use to change the wording of a referendum question. It must consult the people who have put forward the petition before doing so, but I am not sure that the word “misleading” covers everything. For example, an authority might want to improve the grammar of a question. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, petitions to councils even for something as important as a referendum are not necessarily written in the most appropriate phrases. If more felicitous wording can be introduced, it may be an improvement, but I am not sure whether that would make the question any more or less misleading. There may be inappropriate words in the question, which the council thinks are slang or rude, but once they are removed the petition remains perfectly valid.

More substantively, a question might be asking for action from the wrong people. It might ask the council to do something which it cannot do, but the council might be able to do other things. I am trying to think of an example. There is a gap in the railway line between Colne and Skipton on the Lancashire-Yorkshire border, and a campaign called SELRAP is working to have it reinstated. Noble Lords might have had communications from the group because it is vigorous in pursuing its case with everybody. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest as a patron of SELRAP since I am talking about it, but I was bullied into it. A petition might ask Pendle or Craven council, or even Lancashire or North Yorkshire county council, to reinstate the railway line. Regrettably, that is not within the power of any of those local authorities. On the other hand, it is within their power to provide funds to SELRAP and to push the process of assessing proposals for the reinstatement of the line further along the road. The GRIP process is a series of steps that all cost money, and the authority could contribute towards it.

A petition might come in asking any of the councils to put in a new railway line, but it would be rejected on the grounds that it had nothing to do with them. On the other hand, the councils could ask for a differently worded petition so that SELRAP could be funded to undertake the next batch of work necessary to get Network Rail, the Government and everyone else to pay attention. Alternatively, it might be a county council matter but the petition is sent to the district council, or vice versa. Those are helpful changes, and I do not think the word “misleading” describes them.

Amendments 128T and 128V were meant to probe the question of holding the referendum on the same day as elections, and whether that is a good or a bad thing. We have discussed this in some detail so it is not necessary to pursue it any further. Amendment 128U looks at how quickly a referendum has to take place once a council determines that it should be held. If it is generally thought that in order to save money and for general convenience, a referendum should be held on the same day as an election, and that election is due within 12 months, the amendment would make it possible, at the discretion of the council, to delay the referendum for up to 12 months rather than only up to the six months provided for in the Bill. In most cases referendums brought forward during the summer and autumn would have to be freestanding and would therefore cost perhaps three times as much. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton)]

My Lords, the amendment proposed is:

“Page 42, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5)”.

[Lord True]

I apologise for that, my Lords. I was dazzled by the sun and by my noble friend’s arguments. I do not want to speak to all the amendments in the group, although I have quite a bit of sympathy for them. However, Clause 52(3) is far too restrictive, so again I want to be more permissive than my noble friend. I really do not see what business it is of the Government to come in and say that a local referendum is to be delayed until the date of an election or another referendum. If it is an urgent question relating to a matter of concern that might involve a small number of people in a borough, it need not be that expensive. Why cannot the local authority just get on with it and use its own discretion? Clause 52(1), (2) and (5) seems perfectly reasonable, but could my noble friend just leave the rest to the local authority to determine?

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord might look at Clause 52(4), which seems to give the relevant discretion.

[Lord True]

I noticed that but thought it an extraordinarily strange piece of drafting. It says that you must wait—but need not wait if you do not want to. I do not recognise that sort of drafting. Why not just leave both subsections out?

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord will become very familiar with that sort of drafting in the course of discussions on this Bill and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this amendment probes the material about the referendum and the question published by the local authority holding the referendum. Clause 53(4) says:

“Subject to subsection (5), the principal local authority may publish, or arrange for the publication of, material that is designed to encourage support for or opposition to the question to be asked in the referendum”,

while Clause 53(5) says this applies only to referendums which are,

“held in response to a petition”,

from the public, “or a request” from a member or members of the authority and that the authority can,

“incur only such expenditure as is reasonable”,

whatever that may mean.

I am moving this amendment to take out those two subsections as a means of probing how they will work and what they mean. I have also put down Amendments 128Y and 128Z, which say that if the local authority produces material in support and/or opposition to the question, it has to do so in a fair and balanced way. It has to give,

“equal prominence to the arguments”,

on each side. That mirrors what happens in national referendums, where the Government, or the Electoral Commission on behalf of the Government, publish statements which say, “On the one hand, vote yes; on the other hand, vote no”. They put a fair and balanced argument. In this new world of local referendums, it is not clear to me whether local authorities are going to be able to churn out publicity on one side only, or to be strongly in favour of one side and against the other, and whether that is intended or desirable. This is a very important question that needs careful bottoming.

My understanding is that the Electoral Commission has expressed some concern about this and believes that there should be balance, although I was looking for the stuff that I think I have had from it before this debate and I could not find it. I cannot quote exactly what it is saying but it would be interesting to have a definitive view from the Electoral Commission on this matter, certainly before we get to Report. It is fairly obvious that this is an important matter and that there may be different views on it, but our view is that a council ought to be putting out fair and balanced publicity, if it wishes to put out publicity at all. It ought to have the option not to spend any more money than it is already and to keep out of the argument altogether. The Bill suggests that it can because it says:

“the principal local authority may publish, or arrange for the publication of”,

with the clear implication there that it does not have to if it does not want to.

Particularly where a referendum is tied in heavily with the local political argument and where referendums and local elections get intertwined, as I think will be inevitable, it will be dangerous for local authorities to get involved on one side of an argument. The political party running a local authority may strongly be on one side with the party in opposition, which might be ready to take over if it wins enough seats, on the other. For the local authority to weigh in with public money in those circumstances seems to me to be wrong in principle. I am not saying that people should not campaign; people should campaign, but they should go out and organise their own campaigns.

Amendment 128AA seeks to put some controls on expenditure on this kind of publicity in a referendum on which the local authority spends its own money. It seeks to harden up the word “reasonable” by saying that it has to be approved by a meeting of the council. The meeting of the council that determines that a referendum should take place should also decide whether the local authority spends any money on it and how much; it should set a budget for it, because, in any case, this will be all be money outside the council’s agreed budget. I assume that councils will not put contingency sums in their budget in case they have referendums. They will all be hoping that they do not have any, from that point of view. They will not want to put the council tax up or cut other services at budget time in order to put money aside for referendums, so I assume they will not do that and therefore it may well need a supplementary vote by the full council anyway, if it is a full-scale referendum and is costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. Where is it going to come from? The council will have to decide, so it would be part of that.

I would put forward Amendment 128AA only on the basis that the council was going to be even-handed. The council being able to vote sums of money to one side in a highly politically contentious question is a very dangerous way forward. This is put forward as genuinely probing, to find out what the Government’s views are, but it is also a considerable concern that might need a bit more thought before Report.

[Lord True]

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wishes to speak briefly: I, too, will speak briefly. I do not think that this is a matter that we can resolve in this Committee. It is important and perhaps in the period up to Report we may see some guidance and thoughts as to how the Government, the Electoral Commission and others see it developing. There is a difference between a national referendum about an unresolved policy question and certain circumstances of local referendums. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is no longer in his place; he has rushed out to organise a referendum against the parking-charge policy of his own council. In those circumstances it is surely reasonable for the council to defend its policy against the proposition that is put on the other side, so I do not think that we can be absolutist on this matter. I do not favour the extensive spending of public money, but I hope that my noble friend, as we discuss these things over the next few weeks, will not rule out and disarm councils—elected representatives—from putting their case in referendums.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord True. This is difficult territory. The Bill as it stands contains a provision that,

“enables the authority to incur only such expenditure as is reasonable”.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already indicated that it is not at all clear what “reasonable” might be, but I put it another way: if expenditure is unreasonable, then, of course, it can be challenged by the usual audit processes. I think that that is sufficient safeguard in that respect. What is more complicated is the question of equal prominence. Amendment 128AA states that the decision is only to,

“be exercised following a resolution authorising the maximum amount to be spent”.

This raises some difficult issues. On the equal-prominence argument, who is to provide the case for the petitioners—for those who are seeking the referendum? It can hardly be suggested that the local authority should provide their case for them. There will be cases in which there is a well resourced, articulate group of people who can produce a substantial case. If, on the other hand, it is a community group, or some organisation which produces a three-line question for a referendum, it may not be able to do that. Is the council then constrained to reply to the three-line referendum with a three-line response? That would not be reasonable. The equal-prominence test is very difficult to operate in practice.

Localism Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns governance issues, the part of the Bill to which we now move. The amendments deal with some of the regulations which the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make. I have a vision of a group of civil servants in the subterranean depths of Eland House employed full time in drafting regulations on all manner of things, many of which we will encounter as the Bill progresses through Committee. In the interests of health and safety, if nothing else, of those who are so engaged and of local government, I suggest that the Government look again at the degree to which they are seeking to regulate.

The amendments relate to Schedule 2, page 189, and seek to limit the degree to which regulation will take place other than at the request of local authorities. Amendment 34 suggests that regulations should be made only if asked for by authorities. Amendment 35 would limit significantly the arrangements that the Government seek to make under these proposals and would ensure that any such arrangements are consistent with the principles of localism and the representative democracy which featured so largely in the initial debate on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, it might be helpful if I speak to my Amendment 37, which is in this group and relates to governance arrangements. I apologise for its rather dense language but it imitates the drafting style of the Bill and I was trying to be as accommodating as possible to the Government. The real issue here is about the relations between lower tier and higher tier authorities, and how we achieve localism where things are done to local people by higher tier authorities.

I have a very live example: before leaving for the House this morning, I received an extremely angry e-mail from a person in my ward asking, “Why on earth are you wasting my money moving bus stops on our high street?”. The answer is that I am not doing that. I have had meetings with TfL asking it not to move bus stops. But it is all being done by a higher tier authority within a lower tier authority without any open consultation with the people affected.

There are many other examples of this kind of thing, and I am sure it does not only go on between London boroughs and regional government—it probably goes on between lower tier authorities and county councils and, in some cases, parish councils. Another example would be the one I cited at Second Reading where, after consultation with local people, we proposed revised parking standards in a neighbourhood. Without holding any public consultation, we received a letter from a higher authority saying that the arrangements were not satisfactory and did not accord with its standards, and we were asked to change them.

I do not wish to unpick the constitutional arrangements between lower and higher tier authorities in this country, but I do not think that the Bill is very localist when it comes to London boroughs. Indeed, it strikingly fails to be localist in that respect. What I am really asking for in the amendment, although I do not expect my noble friend to agree to it at first bite nor do I necessarily want to add to the huge bible of regulation that is emerging from this Bill, is recognition of the important principle here. If we believe in localism, at the very least it should be open to the lower tier authority to be able to say to the higher tier authority, “If you are considering planning changes which specifically affect an area”, such as whether to have high-rise buildings in the centre of Twickenham, which happens to be a live issue in my authority, “meetings should be held by the higher tier authority to gauge the opinion of local people”. It might even be that we could ask officers to come and hold public meetings, or indeed have the right to require that that should happen.

At the moment there is no formal ability for a lower tier authority to act on behalf of its local residents to do what we would regard as absolutely normal in terms of explaining to residents what is going on. It is absolutely inconceivable, if we were planning to change the alignment of a high street in a village or small town centre, that that would be done without prior and detailed public consultation with local people. The purpose of the amendment is to give a lower tier authority such as my own, a London borough, but also those outside London, the ability to propose or suggest arrangements to the higher tier authority to ensure that it conducts itself in a proper, localist fashion in respect of matters that affect local people. I urge my noble friend to reflect on the issue being raised here.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have one amendment in the group and I shall speak to the others. I start by saying that we support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. They form part of a recurring theme in our discussions on this Bill, which is that while the Government’s proposal is that localism should be more prevalent and that there should be more localism in authorities and among local people, it is being done within a highly prescribed framework and is subject to a large number of orders and regulations from the centre. In other words, it is top-down localism, not genuine localism. There is absolutely no reason at all why this amount of central control and prescription of local authorities should take place. It was not the case when I first became a councillor 40 years ago. We had nothing like this amount of central control when the new authorities were set up in 1973 and elected in 1974. It has crept in over the years from both Conservative and Labour Governments, and we are now getting more of it from the coalition.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

37: Schedule 2, page 190, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A lower tier authority may propose to the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State make regulations prescribing arrangements specified in the proposal if the authority considers that, in addition to the conditions in subsection (5), the arrangements would lead to the increased local accountability of the higher tier authority to residents of the lower tier authority’s area and improve the ability of local residents to influence or participate in decisions affecting their locality.
(6B) No proposal under subsection (6A) may involve the duplication or repeating of meetings, but may propose that the higher tier authority, or a body established by that authority, or its responsible officers should meet or publish details of its meetings relating to matters specifically affecting people within the lower authority’s area within the lower tier authority’s area.”

[Lord True]

I hope that I am not behaving badly through inexperience, but I had wanted to respond to the remarks made by others on this amendment. Am I behaving badly?

[Baroness Byford]

No, you need to move the amendment.

[Lord True]

I would like to move the amendment. My point is twofold. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, others and I were grateful for the support that was given in the earlier discussion. I think that it underlined the point that decisions are not localist in the way that, in my submission, they should be. We need not have regulations of the kind that I am suggesting might be considered if the lower-tier authority were simply prepared to decide where a bus stop should be on its high street. If the Government wish in their reflections on the Bill to come forward with proposals to localise those decisions then, in the spirit of what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, I would welcome that. Since I do not anticipate that, though, I am asking my noble friend to consider, before we get to Report, the relationship between the lower-tier and higher-tier authorities.

The problem with the Bill as it is now framed, as I read it, is that a local authority may make propositions to the Secretary of State about regulations prescribing arrangements concerning its own procedures but not regarding arrangements relating to another authority’s procedures that affect activity in its own area. I may be wrong in reading the Bill in that way; if so, at this or a later stage my noble friend may be able to enlighten me. As I read it, though, this great Localism Bill, the principle of which we all support, does not give lower-tier authorities the opportunity to suggest that their own people be addressed in a more localist manner by higher authorities.

I regret if I have not been succinct in making this point, but I urge my noble friend and those advising her to consider it seriously. Our daily experience—my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Howard of Rising have given examples—show that these matters affect people in their daily lives. As our consideration of the Bill continues, I urge my noble friend to think further and to come back on this matter at a later stage.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I think that the slight difficulty arose because the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, got up to speak before I had a chance to get in. I apologise for not speaking before he wound up on his amendment.

I come with no practical hands-on experience in local government but I want to reinforce the points that my noble friend is trying to make. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that there was widespread frustration, as indeed there is, from parish level up to district level and beyond. I hope that the Bill will in some way resolve some of the difficulties that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding spoke about. We have a great opportunity to try to simplify things and ensure that local communities can act in a manner that is in their own best interests. If we are promoting much more involvement of local communities through the big society, it seems a shame if the Bill is not going to ease some of the situations that different tiers currently find themselves in. I hope that my noble friend will have a chance to reflect on this. If the wording is not right—often it is not exactly what the Government of the day wish—it is the thrust of the amendment that is important. It is trying to ensure that local authorities and local tiers take on that responsibility and do so in the proper, accepted manner. It is also trying to ensure that, where there are disagreements, there should be discussions between the tiers, whichever tiers they happen to be. I commend my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Hanham]

I think that I replied earlier because I had not realised that other people were going to take part in this. I hear what is being said by my noble friends Lord True, Lord Howard, Lord Jenkin and now Lord Wade. When we look at the measures in the Bill, I think that most of them will turn out to be liberating for local government. It gives them a general power of competence and greater flexibility in what they can do. On some of the areas that we are legislating about now, we think that it is appropriate that there should be some regulations about how things should be done.

I worry a bit about my noble friend Lord True’s amendment. It asks the Secretary of State to prescribe a route along which the noble Lord and others have been telling us that we should not be going on any other matter, so it does not quite follow. I think that we have discussed across the Chamber before that there are not always good relations between the three tiers of government, particularly if you start with a parish council, but I am not sure that that poor relationship is something that this Government should try to prescribe a route through.

There are many changes taking place in the way in which local government is run. Many new arrangements are having to be made, as I said earlier, about management, about sharing chief executives across councils and districts and about sharing services, all of which ought to make it much easier for local government to avoid the elephant traps that my noble friend is talking about. In the light of the concern that there is, I will reflect on this issue before the next stage. I do not think that I would hold my breath that we will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendments, but I certainly hear the sentiments that have been expressed in the House today.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the final part of her response. I take some hope and encouragement from that. I hope that she will reflect on the matter; I certainly will. I had no expectation that my amendment was going to be a perfectly framed answer on this subject. However, I earnestly submit that there is a strong localist argument behind this point. I am content to withdraw my modest localising amendment if perhaps at a later stage the Government might return to me with the withdrawal of some of their rather immodest centralising proposals. I thank my noble friend for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 84DA in the same group, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. My noble friend would certainly have wished to move this amendment but, unfortunately, she cannot be here. It is suggested to us by the Centre for Public Scrutiny, on whose advisory body she serves, and it follows a theme of today's discussion in Committee. The effect of Amendment 84DA is to remove the right of the Secretary of State to make detailed guidance on scrutiny issues. It would remove the statutory force from existing guidance that the department has produced but, of course, local authorities would still be able to use that existing guidance to get some idea of the legislative intent of Parliament.

The centre believes, and I certainly agree with it very strongly, that the maximum possible discretion should be given to local authorities about how they operate their scrutiny function, with primary legislation providing general enabling powers which are interpreted intelligently by councils, councillors and their officers. Scrutiny is a member-led function and, therefore, it seems inappropriate that Government should provide detailed prescription of its operation. That is the same theme with which we have been dealing all day today and I suspect that we shall continue to do so through much of this Bill.

Where a specific need for guidance is identified, advisory information can be developed by the sector which can incorporate the views of the Government but which would be prepared independently and based on the needs and interests of local authorities and their residents. The justification for omitting this paragraph on guidance is a combination of practical reasons and reasons of principle. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong proceedings, but I have not had an opportunity to say how much I agree with the general thrust of many of the things that are being said. It may be that, at a later stage, it will be possible, through Amendment 84DA, to leave out a “must” and put in a “may”. Those who advise the Secretary of State, and who have the pleasure of writing all sorts of guidance for local authorities, could continue to do so and we could pay due respect to the importance of that guidance and to guidance that came from other sources. Then perhaps everyone would be delighted and a little localism might reign.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, we are back again to the same arguments that we had on the previous amendment on area committees. It relies on the regulations. I thank my noble friend Lord True for suggesting a way in which amendments might come. I think we need to look carefully at what has been said. Perhaps I need to review this before the next stage to see whether anything needs to be done about these provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to scrutiny. In my view, scrutiny is best achieved by a committee system. A committee system is better at delivering good decisions than a scrutiny system which scrutinises those decisions after they have been made. In other words, you scrutinise as you go.

This is a probing amendment. As we do not have a voting system for local government in England based on proportional representation, some councils can have very large majorities held by one party. This may not be reflected in the votes that were cast but is very often reflected in the number of seats that are won. Good scrutiny requires constant challenge. Scrutiny committees are proportional in their overall membership but it would be advantageous for them to be chaired by a member of the authority’s largest opposition party.

Members of your Lordships' House are aware that I am a councillor in Newcastle upon Tyne. In 2004, when my party took control of Newcastle City Council, we altered the system to ensure that the Labour opposition chaired all our scrutiny committees. I am pleased to say that this year, when control of Newcastle reverted—temporarily, at least—to the Labour Party, chairmanship of the scrutiny committees passed to the Liberal Democrat opposition. Public scrutiny and public confidence in the system of local government would be improved if scrutiny committees were chaired by opposition councillors. That does not mean that a scrutiny committee has to be proportional in any regard other than the number of seats held by each party. However, public confidence in the system would be improved if the person constructing the agendas was an elected councillor of a party other than the one that was in control of the council. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from but there are obvious difficulties with the amendment quite apart from whether or not it is tending towards prescription. For example, I recall a not very happy election in 1986 when I was one of three members of my party on our local authority—

[Lord Tope]

That was a very happy election.

[Lord True]

It may have been for others. I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was there. In those circumstances, had there been a scrutiny system with four scrutiny committees, under this amendment a member of the opposition would have found himself or herself chairing two scrutiny committees. The principle behind the amendment is a good one but in practice it simply would not work. In my humble view, the so-called “cabinet” system that was imposed on us by the previous Administration has tended, as many of us involved in local government know, to create a potential gulf between the executive members and the back-bench members of the governing party and local authorities have had to work against that all the time. It is vital that back-bench members of the governing party have full involvement—often very sceptical involvement—in the operation of the authority. It is desirable that they should also be given the opportunity to take a leading role in challenging the authority and scrutinising it. This is often the case in many authorities that I know and have visited. It would be outrageous for the opposition party to be excluded from chairing scrutiny committees but equally, as well as being impractical in certain circumstances, it would be undesirable to exclude the back-bench members of a governing party from being involved in taking executive decisions and playing a leading role in scrutiny. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and his colleagues for changing the system that we operated in Newcastle when they took office in 2004. I will let the noble Lord and your Lordships into the secret that prior to that date I had tried to persuade my colleagues at least to emulate the system in another place of a balance of chairmanship of such committees, but with my usual lack of cogency I failed to persuade them at that time. However, they have now been converted by the noble Lord and his colleagues, so things move on.

I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord True, has said about the impracticality of the suggestion behind the amendment. I can give a better justification. The borough of Newham has 60 Labour members and no opposition members at all—or at least no overt opposition members—so clearly the amendment would not work there. The Labour Party advice about scrutiny committees is that the relevant duty should be shared. That is national Labour Party advice and I hope that the same is true of other political parties as well. It would make a great deal of sense.

If I differ from the noble Lord it is because, as has rather often been the case, he has tended to view scrutiny as something retrospective and as a case of holding an executive to account for decisions that it has made or is about to make. That is part of the job but it overlooks the forward programming of an authority and the development of policy. One of the great advantages of properly resourced scrutiny is that it allows members to develop policy free of the operation of the whip, which should not apply in scrutiny.

After 24 years chairing committees and leading a council, I was eventually voluntarily dispatched to my Siberian power station; that is, the arts and recreation committee in Newcastle. I found that being a back-bencher was very different from chairing a meeting. As the chairman of a meeting, you had an agenda and if you were any good at it you knew what you wanted, you had a discussion and you got it through. In Newcastle’s case I would have a pre-meeting with 15 Labour members for an hour. That represents an average of four minutes each. The dialogue was not Socratic in its nature. It was not the highest level of political debate and many members were simply concerned to get through the meeting as quickly as possible. By contrast, scrutiny actually allows people to think. Some people found the transition to be rather difficult, but it is welcome.

The whole thing can be summarised for me by my moment of revelation, which came when, having missed a meeting, I went to a meeting of the arts and recreation committee—a very worthy committee with a big agenda —and I read in a minute that a member had raised the question of birds eating grass seed on the Leazes Park allotment. I thought, “Has it really come to this? This is not really an effective way of running things”. I therefore support in principle the executive scrutiny split, provided that scrutiny is adequately resourced.

Subject to those reservations, I generally support scrutiny. I will refer briefly to Amendment 48 in this group relating to new Section 9FC and the guidance being proffered. New subsection (3) states that in exercising the power to refer matters to a scrutiny committee,

“the member must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State”.

The notion that 20,000 councillors are going to consult the bible on scrutiny issued by Eland House before they are able to refer something is, frankly, ridiculous. I anticipate that the Minister will acknowledge that this could be excised from the Bill without damage. I invite her so to indicate.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister will be able to give as sympathetic a response as she did previously and, in anticipation of that, I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I support in some measure the remarks of my noble friend Lord Tope. I hear what is said about the Centre for Public Scrutiny and all its recommendations. Equally, I hear all that the Government want to say about scrutiny. I am sure that there are two very worthy industries involved here that may well come together. I support the recommendation that my noble friend has made to come forward with thickets of advice to local authorities on these subjects—may the twain meet.

However, as this debate goes on, I sometimes wonder whether the end result might be that parts of the Government involved in providing guidance and regulations could be hived off as a social enterprise, perhaps co-operating with other areas in local government. They could sell the benefits of their advice to local authorities and we might be able to reduce the size of government and perhaps, in partnership, improve the quality of advice. That is a slightly impish suggestion but, on the other hand, it is not entirely without seriousness.

I particularly support Amendment 47A, which addresses the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I think that it would allow issues that were not technically local government matters to be referred to scrutiny. I support Amendment 48A on a probing basis. It would delete from the Bill the words:

“Guidance under subsection (3) may make different provision for different cases”.

This means that if a member of an authority wants to say to a scrutiny chairman, “I think this is something you need to look into”, first, he has to refer to the existing legislation, which is before us, and look up the bible of guidance that will be issued by the government department. He may then find that that guidance makes different provision for different cases, with scrutiny into this or that or some other circumstances, and he is therefore entering a potential nightmare world. I know that my noble friend, local government and outside advisers do not want to go there, but I return to my general point. I hope that those discussions can take place but I hope that the presiding principle in all this will be to minimise the requirements on local authorities to read, mark, learn, inwardly digest and obey. Let us please have localism.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments, and I start by saying that I shall be helpful in relation to some but not to others. As noble Lords have said, the various amendments in the group seek to remove the guidance or regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State—a common theme this afternoon. In each case, the powers enable certain safeguards to be in place. Although noble Lords are critical of regulation, sometimes it is necessary at the same time to protect other aspects with which they are concerned.

Amendment 45A would remove the ability to issue guidance on important matters such as scrutiny chairs, as we discussed on the previous group. Amendments 48A, 48B and 48C would remove the requirement for members to have regard to guidance and the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in relation to the referral of matters to a scrutiny committee. However, as I said, these powers enable the Secretary of State to ensure that certain important safeguards are in place. We have discussed some of them, such as vexatious or discriminatory matters being placed before a scrutiny committee, which we talked about on the previous amendment. I do not think that it is unreasonable that that sort of aspect should be ruled out of the scrutiny committee’s responsibilities. Some might take that view and some might not but I think it is sensible that they are left with no option about that. As well as rights of appeal, the amendments would also exclude matters that are already statutory processes, such as planning and licensing decisions or matters relating, for example, to an individual. Therefore, I shall not be able to accept those amendments.

Amendments 49U and 49V would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to guard against the duplication of requests by scrutiny committees to other partner bodies. They are regulations that seek to minimise the burden on such authorities and make best use of the available information.

Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B and 49D to 49T also look to reform existing scrutiny provisions by simplifying and expanding the definition of “partner bodies”. They would expand the matters in relation to which scrutiny committees may rely on their powers, removing the link to local area agreements—which we have already agreed I should look at—and extending the powers of district council scrutiny committees, among other things, as we have already discussed.

As I said in the debate on the previous group, we do not believe that the existing framework hampers innovative practices by scrutiny committees. However, I have some sympathy with the aims of some of the amendments, and, again, I shall draw them into the discussions that we need to have. They seek to bring up to date the scrutiny regime that sits across various Acts of Parliament in light of recent changes, so it is right that we should look at them.

I am happy to consider Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B, and 49D to 49T. In debating previous amendments, we also discussed committee system authorities and the operation of scrutiny. Our view is that such authorities should be able to choose to have overview and scrutiny committees. Proposed new Section 9JA makes this clear. Removing the section entirely would create confusion. It would be unclear whether committee system authorities could operate scrutiny committees, and what the role and powers of such committees would be if they did. Therefore, the amendment is proposing that is unnecessary.

The provisions that Amendments 87ZB to 87ZD seek to change replicate existing provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, which reflect the important interests that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have in the provision of education, given the significant number of voluntary-aided schools in most if not all local authorities. It is correct that these significant partners in education should by right have representation on the relevant scrutiny committees. Therefore, we do not support the amendments.

With those explanations, the realisation that we discussed some issues when debating the previous group of amendments, and my acceptance of further discussions on some of the amendments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill allows the Secretary of State by order to give the Housing Ombudsman the power to make determinations that have the force of a court order, yet the Bill contains no provision to bring the ombudsman under the Act. I can imagine only that this is an oversight, because if the Housing Ombudsman remains outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, the Bill will lead to a reduction in the public’s right to information, as the Act will no longer apply to the body that was responsible for dealing with housing complaints against local authorities. This amendment would quite simply make the Housing Ombudsman a public authority for the Freedom of Information Act. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am tempted to wonder how many pieces of information might have been released during the noble Lord’s exposition of his amendments—doubtless, very many.

I hope that my noble friend will consider sceptically the case that has been made. I am a strong exponent of the principle of openness—we discussed whether there should be a presumption of openness in our debate on a previous group of amendments. I think that I heard my noble friend give a commitment that it should apply to meetings.

The noble Lord is clearly a significant enthusiast for freedom of information, for which I commend him, but again I hope that my noble friend will be sceptical when she examines these amendments, which not many of us have had the opportunity to look at in detail. I asked my chief executive how much freedom of information implementation had cost my authority so far in the past year, to which the response was £120,000. That does not sound like very much but it approaches 1 per cent of the council’s discretionary budget, outside schools. The freedom that has been given is important, but it must be exercised in proportion. In my experience, quite often when someone pursued a freedom of information request they would have been given the answer through the front door if they had simply asked the question, although that clearly would not have been so in the case to which the noble Lord refers.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 52A intends to take these procedures into contractor arrangements, subcontractor arrangements, and doubtless sub-sub-subcontractor arrangements. It would end up creating such a cat’s cradle of bureaucracy for these arrangements that we might well end up, as the noble Lord himself recognised, deterring small businesses from putting themselves within this embrace. I reiterate that I strongly support the idea of freedom of information in principle, but I hope that when my noble friend considers this group of amendments she will, as I said, exercise due scepticism—on behalf of those of us, as publicly accountable authorities, who have to administer open systems, which we do—about the costs that local authorities, and through them their contractors and subcontractors, might incur. With £120,000, I could have created a fairly large number of very useful public assets. Doubtless some of the requests were extremely worth while, but there should be nothing in excess.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think that we should thank my noble friend Lord Wills for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. He had a distinguished ministerial career and responsibility for this area, which very much showed in his contribution today.

We are living in an era of transparency, which has already been very much the byword of many of our debates on this Bill. We are also living in an era in which there will be increasing partnership working, outsourcing and joint working, very much along the lines on which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, focused when he talked about scrutiny functions in our debate on a previous group of amendments. The focus of FOI in the current era is therefore entirely appropriate.

My noble friend’s Amendment 52A very much chimes with the group of amendments that we have just discussed in its presumption that meetings should be held in public. On Amendments 133A and 133B, he acknowledged—and the noble Lord, Lord True, touched on this—that we need to focus on the practical ramifications of driving freedom of information through a contractor, a subcontractor and then perhaps a sub-subcontractor chain. I am thinking particularly of the construction industry and how diverse and complex some of its contractual arrangements are.

In a sense, my noble friend offered the route to a solution when he said that there should be some sort of de minimis or cut-off point in the application of this. His focus, as he acknowledged, was partly on the business left over from when he was a Minister, but he also dealt with some practical examples, such as Swindon, and cited the Islington Council situation, which is not theoretical but actual.

The noble Lord, Lord True, said on the one hand that he was an enthusiast for freedom of information, but on the other urged his noble friend to be sceptical about it. I am not sure that those two concepts sit very comfortably together.

[Lord True]

Forgive me, my Lords, but openness and statutory freedom of information are not the same thing. They overlap, but in some respects openness can go further than statutory freedom of information.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I do not disagree, but I thought that the noble Lord said that he was also an enthusiast for freedom of information. Maybe I misunderstand him and he is not, but if he is I do not think that that sits with his urging his noble friend to be sceptical.

As I said, my noble friend has given us an opportunity to have an interesting debate on an important subject. In particular, he has done us a service by focusing on particular issues relating to the Housing Ombudsman, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s response specifically to those. His request is not for the Minister to give a detailed response to his quite extensive and detailed amendment but for her to say whether the Government agree with the principle behind it. That is a very important ask, particularly, as he pointed out, because the coalition agreement has a commitment to freedom of information and to extending its scope. This area is worthy of further analysis and I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am conscious that Amendment 56 is possibly not now the most important or interesting in this group, but we tabled it as a probing amendment with a view to asking the Minister to explain more clearly than is apparent in the Bill itself new Section 9H(3) and (4), which deals with the nature of a mayor and his or her relationship with the council. While I am on my feet, I shall refer to some of the other amendments in this group and, indeed, to others that are yet to come. Again I congratulate the Government on recognising that the whole question of shadow mayors and mayoral arrangements really has no place in a Bill that is about localism. As we discussed at Question Time yesterday, I know that it will be said by some that this is a sensible move by a listening Government, and said by others to be a U-turn. I do not mind very much what it is called; I just feel that the Government are to be congratulated.

I thank in particular the Minister for bringing the decision forward at such an early stage in our consideration of the Bill, which no doubt will save many hours of debate in this Chamber. With that, I beg to move Amendment 56 and I look forward to the debate on the other amendments in the group.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, and I want to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said by thanking very sincerely my noble friend for the leadership and responsiveness she has shown on this matter. Those of us who have been present in the Committee today will also have noted the openness, warmth and positive way in which she has responded to a number of the points that have been put forward. We are all grateful for that.

I am slightly confused by the groupings, which have changed a little overnight, perhaps for reasons related to pre-emption or to a number of other points. By the way, I should pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who played a big part in raising this issue at Second Reading. There was unity across the House that to create shadow mayors before the electors in the cities concerned had had an opportunity to have their say was not a good idea. The Minister then came forward at the earliest possible opportunity to say that the Government had accepted the arguments, so the principle does not need to be debated at any great length, and I do not propose to do so. However, I should give notice, in speaking to the large number of amendments within this grouping, that it should be taken that I have also spoken to Amendments 74A, 77A, 77B, 79A and 81A. They are not in this group, but they relate to the same subject. Even if I have it wrong, I hope that the Committee will accept that I shall not come back to those amendments later, and I repeat my thanks to my noble friend for taking up the point in the positive way she has.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, relates to the part of the Bill which defines a mayor as distinct from a councillor. I wonder whether that is particularly well advised. I cannot recall the precise clause or paragraph in the schedule that deals with the eligibility of people to stand for election as mayor. It lists a whole series of officers of an authority who may not stand. At the moment, a serving member or employee of a local authority is disbarred from standing as a councillor. If the mayoral position was to be treated for all purposes in the same way as a councillor, you would not need a provision in the Bill to identify all the authority officers who could not stand for that position. Indeed, it could be argued that if you do not treat the mayor as a councillor, you might find that some people are inadvertently omitted but who perhaps should be barred from seeking to be elected because they already hold a position within the authority. My understanding is that the bar will remain in place for some time after their period of service has concluded.

Would it not be sensible for the Government to rethink this provision and simply state, unless there is a regulation the other way, as it were, that all provisions relating to councillors such as declarations of interest and all the rest of it should apply to elected mayors, rather than reverse the procedure and require regulations specifically for the elected mayor which could otherwise be avoided?

In relation to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord True, there was a problem, and indeed there still is a problem, in the grouping of these amendments. As I read it, many of the noble Lord’s amendments tag on to provisions for the implementation of the mayoral system, with reference to a referendum having taken place on the basis of three possibilities. One is the decision of a local authority itself, but subject to a referendum. Another is a petition from the public generally, and the third, which is the problematic one for many of us, is the requirement to hold a referendum by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, the noble Lord’s amendments, along with those of his noble friends, assume for the purposes of their amendments that the compulsory referendum remains part of the Bill. Last night I endeavoured to turn the debate around the other way so that we could deal with that issue first. When we come to consider the Bill on Report, perhaps we might look at how to address the issue.

The implementation points are perfectly valid and apply to the two non-compulsory forms of acquiring an elected mayor, but while I know that the Committee will not divide on them today, if the amendments were to be accepted on Report, it would be assumed that the compulsory referendum had been agreed. Some of us, perhaps many of us, have different views about that. In today’s groupings there are amendments which address that issue of principle, and I hope that the noble Lord understands where some of us are coming from in that respect.

[Lord True]

I thank the noble Lord. I have seen his Amendment 81B, and obviously that implies the direction he is coming from, but I certainly do not want to be unhelpful to the Committee in any way. My objective, which the Government have now said is theirs as well, is to erase the principle of shadow mayors. However, I agree that the point of principle he has raised does merit discussion at some point in our proceedings. I will be as co-operative as I can, under advice.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, unfortunately these amendments were grouped and degrouped rather speedily overnight, so we were slightly surprised to see this morning where the degroupings were. However, I accept the fact that the noble Lord will want to deal with the referendum issue at the next stage. Is there an amendment to which he wants to return? Otherwise I will accept all the amendments I have already said that I would accept, and I will go through them quietly again. The noble Lord indicates that he does not have an amendment to which he wants to return. That being the case, within the groupings of the noble Lord, Lord True, I shall list which amendments I am willing to accept, and if there are any differences about that, we shall look at the issue again. The amendments are Amendments 62A, 66A, 69A, 69B, 69C, 73A, 74A, 75A, 77A, 77B, 79A, 81A, 84A, 84B, 84C, 84D, 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 108A and 187. In listing them, I repeat the undertaking that I gave at the outset of Committee to remove the provisions for mayoral management arrangements.

I shall deal finally with Amendment 56, to which I suspect the noble Lord will want to return at some stage. The amendment would remove the provisions about whether an elected mayor is to be treated as a member or councillor of a local authority. I am told that these provisions replicate those in the Local Government Act 2000, which put in place the default position that a mayor is not to be treated as a member or councillor unless regulations provide that they should be. I do not know which side of the bed we are now on, or whether we are getting into it or out of it, as the noble Lord has said, but the default position is already in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I join this love fest with enthusiasm and congratulate not only the Minister on working this small miracle but other noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, whose long experience and stature have no doubt contributed to bringing about a change of mind on the part of Ministers generally—on achieving this very satisfactory result to what would otherwise have been a very unfortunate situation. I am happy to endorse everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in thanking all those involved.

[Lord True]

My Lords, perhaps I may take a minute of the House’s time and speak now to the two other amendments in the group on which I lead and which have the same welcome effect, as noble Lords on all sides have said. I, too, repeat my salute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the Minister. The separation of mayor and chief executive is a good idea and we should maintain it. I am grateful to my noble friend.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I hope that we might be able to get back on track again without me having to swing round to make sure that I have done all the right things. We are happy to accept Amendment 57; I made clear my support for that previously in Committee. We recognise that there is great concern about the combination of the mayor and chief executive under the shadow arrangements and are content to support the amendment.

We are not quite so happy with Amendment 58 and I am going to reject it—I cannot see why, but I am. By the time we get round to the next stage I will have recovered my composure. I think that I was so taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, being so nice about me that I completely got underneath this. No doubt he will return to the issue at the next stage if he feels it necessary. In the mean time, I am not going to accept that amendment but have spoken to all the others.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

62A: Schedule 2, page 215, leave out lines 4 to 45

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

66A: Schedule 2, page 218, leave out lines 3 to 20

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

69A: Schedule 2, page 221, line 20, at end insert “, and giving effect to, referendum on”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made some very welcome points. Many years ago I was a councillor in the London Borough of Southwark. I left the council in 1994, so I experienced only the traditional committee system. Many years later as a Labour Party official I attended Labour group meetings at which many members said that they were not so keen on the present system and would prefer to go back to the committee system. My noble friend Lord McKenzie made an important point about younger councillors getting fully involved in the council’s business. It is not so easy for them to play a scrutiny role. I hope that the Minister will explain why the three-year period is necessary and why the relevant matters cannot be dealt with more quickly.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not want to prolong the philosophical discussion about which system is better but given the principles behind a Localism Bill, clearly the matter should be decided locally and as soon as possible. I am not speaking as a representative of London Councils, but the matter came up at a recent meeting of the leaders’ executive of London Councils and the leaders of all the parties unanimously agreed that they would like the Government to think again about this proposal. We hope that the amendment spoken to by my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord Palmer will gain favour in the Government’s eyes. I submit that what goes for London goes for authorities outside London as well.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I support this sensible and well drafted amendment; my noble friend understands that joke. I want to make two points. First, if councils are to be able to choose the system of governance that they want, let it not be too bound by lots more regulation. Councils used to exist before 2000 and operated committee systems. They did not have lots of statutory guidance, regulations and orders telling them how to run them. They do not need that. Councils can perfectly well set up committees and run sensible committee systems without lots of new regulations.

Secondly, let us not imagine that there was a wonderful era of local representative democracy before 2000, when local authorities everywhere used the committee system, and that it suddenly all went bad when we had to have the executive/scrutiny split, the appointment of leaders, and so on. Life is not and was not like that. In the past, there were councils that operated efficiently, openly and transparently, involved residents and carried out their duties sensibly and efficiently; and there were councils that were pretty hopeless. That has remained the case, even though their systems have changed. Surprise, surprise—those councils that were not so good before 2000 have been not so good since. Of course, councillors can improve and some go the other way but, by and large, it is simply not true that everything was wonderful before 2000 and that everything has been awful since. Different systems may well suit different types and sizes of councils, and the dispositions of different councillors.

I hope that my council will adopt a new committee system and abandon the executive/scrutiny split, although I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that when you are in control of the council, the executive system allows you to do all sorts of things fairly quickly, and you can just get on and do it. Looking back on the five or six years during which we controlled my council and I was involved on the executive, I have to say that I am not terribly proud of the way in which we made some of the decisions out of the public gaze. Of course, they were all rubber-stamped in a proper and legal manner but, in practice, the decisions were made by a small group of people consisting of top councillors and officials who decided what we wanted to do. It may be that that was always the case and that it will happen under a committee system, but the importance of a committee system, as a noble Lord said earlier, is that the scrutiny process can take place at the time that the decision is being made in the committee. This is one of the real reasons for committees and for not having single-party executives making all the decisions.

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is not in her place. She and I were together on Lancashire County Council and we have discussed this in the past. I extolled the virtues of the committee system when it all changed to what I think is the appalling way in which that council now makes decisions, a large number of which are made by a single member of the executive—a cabinet member, portfolio member, or whatever they call themselves—sometimes meeting as a single-person committee, with all the officers and just one person in the middle making all the decisions. That is not the right way to do local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, would say, “Yes, but even under the committee system, when the Labour Party controlled the county council, the decision was made in the Labour group and very rarely changed”. I would say, “Yes, but occasionally it was changed, particularly when I stood up and pointed a few things out. You made a few changes”. The point is that the decisions were subject to debate and scrutiny in public at the time and at the moment they were being made. That does not happen under a lot of executive systems. The decisions we made on my council, when we were able to do so through the executive route, might have been better if we had had more people there challenging what we were saying and the workability of what we were doing, and persuading us to make some improvements. That is the advantage of the committee system.

However, I hope that people will not continue talking about “going back” to the committee system. We do not want to go back to the old committee system. We who hope that our councils will now move to a committee system want them to learn from the experience of the last 10 years and adopt some of the good things that have happened—scrutiny done well is very good. I know that many councils do not do scrutiny very well at all and that scrutiny committees are simply places to make back-bench councillors think that they actually have a job on the council, but scrutiny can be done very well indeed.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Hamwee is not here because she is an expert in scrutiny and would wax more lyrical about it than me. However, I hope that councils which are going to move forward to a new committee system—not an old dinosaur system—will keep the best parts of scrutiny because, done well, it has a role to play. What it does not do is the day-to-day, week-by-week scrutiny of decisions as they are taking place and that is why we want to go back to committees.

I say these things because this is the first time we have discussed the very welcome proposals by the Government to allow councils to make the choice, which some of us have argued for whenever it has come up in this House in the last 10 years. It is very welcome, the Government are to be congratulated, and I hope as many councils as feel it is sensible will go ahead with it.

--- Later in debate ---

We will not divide in Committee, but we will do so on Report unless there is a change of policy. In our view, the Government have a long way to go to make the case for compelling referendums in the absence of any evidence of any desire for them either in authorities that have not yet had them, or indeed in those that have.

[Lord True]

My Lords, my noble friend might be disappointed that I rise at this point, but I gave her notice that I might do so at some point.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a very interesting and thoughtful intervention which I hope everyone in the House will reflect on. It is absolutely beyond doubt that the coalition agreement, and indeed my own party’s manifesto, made very clear that it wishes the mayoral principle to be extended further, specifically in the cities listed in the noble Lord’s amendment, and he has acknowledged that. From my point of view, therefore, it is absolutely clear that we should support and accept that, as I believe it has, in the traditional sense, a mandate. However, our own party’s manifesto, and the coalition agreement as I read it, did not go beyond that into extending the general principle.

There is at least scope for some discussion on this subject. I have an open mind on it, and I am open to be persuaded by my noble friend and others in the House. In the context of a localism Bill, it is a very strange concept that a Secretary of State of whatever political hue can in effect lift the telephone and say, “You’re going to have a mayoral arrangement in your authority”, even if there has been no clear localist wish for one. If people want a mayor and there is scope for one, and if a campaign for a mayor gains ground, there may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State might be tempted to wish that he had such a power, but I hope that over the next few weeks, while assuring my noble friend of my absolute support for the principles set out in the coalition agreement and in the manifesto, she might be prepared to reflect on whether the best way to advance even what you think is a good idea is to take the power to impose it potentially on the unwilling.

In some way or another we might be able to explore, in the traditions of this House, some way in which the absolute exercise of such potential power could be limited. My noble friend will be relieved to hear that I cannot support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I hope that we can have some constructive engagement on this point.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have one or two questions. First, what evidence do the Government or anyone else have that in these 11 cities, including Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Wakefield—the metropolitan district of Wakefield is technically a city, but is in fact a collection of towns, as I know well because I grew up there—Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Nottingham and Bradford—there is an overwhelming demand, or indeed any significant demand, in these places for an elected mayor? In the absence of such a demand, forcing a referendum on people that is likely to be rejected in the majority of these places—perhaps all but two or three places are likely to reject it, or perhaps they will all reject it—is an astonishing waste of money.

Secondly, can the Minister tell us how much it will cost to hold a referendum in each of these 11 places? Although I may have missed something, the only place I can recall where there was a significant campaign for an elected mayor was Liverpool. It was led by some high-profile people, some of whom were connected with broadcasting organisations. However, the campaign failed to get through the present system to requisition a referendum. It is clear that in each of these places it would be difficult to raise the 5 per cent of genuine signatures for a referendum. In those circumstances, it is extraordinary that in a Bill called “localism”, the Government are imposing from the centre their own version of how local democracy should work.

People might argue that an elected mayor is a more localist system than an elected council, council leader and so on. But it is difficult to see how they can argue that it is more localist. They might argue that it is more efficient, more effective or more exciting, or that more people will turn out to vote, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, that is not likely. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us the criteria that the Government have used to make them think that this provision of top-down centralised instructions to people on the ground on how to run their cities fits in with a Bill called “localism”.

Thirdly, what evidence have the Government got that, in those places which have already got elected mayors, taking them as a whole, the system of local government is better than it was previously? There are places where the system is working very well. I would point, as I would anyway, to Watford, which has a Liberal Democrat mayor and a Liberal Democrat council, which helps a lot because they work closely together. But I suspect that, without an elected mayor but with a Liberal Democrat majority, the Liberal Democrat elected councillors and, thus, mayor would work together and would be a good council anyway.

I am not arguing that Liberal Democrat councils are always better than other councils. We all know perfectly well that, while we all pretend that our councils are better in different ways than everyone else’s, it is not always the case. As I keep saying, there are good councils and bad councils, and most councils are somewhere in-between, which goes right across the parties. They may have different approaches to things but in terms of whether they are good, bad, efficient, inefficient or whatever, it goes across the spectrum.

There are councils run well by mayors. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned some in London. There are also councils which may have elected mayors but do not run so well. Local politics and local administration in Stoke-on-Trent has been a basket case for some considerable time. Having an elected mayor made absolutely no difference. You could argue that it made it worse. Another example is Doncaster, another council which has not had a good reputation for being efficient, open, honest and all sorts of things over the years. It now has an elected English Democrat mayor. Does that make the administration in Doncaster any better? The Government do not think so because they keep putting people in Doncaster to sort it out and to run things.

There are places where the local political culture is conducive to being run efficiently, whichever party is running it. There are places where the local political culture is conducive to it being a shambles and very difficult for whoever is running it to sort out. There is no evidence whatever that those places with elected mayors are on average run any better or any worse than those without elected mayors. Surely, if the Government are going to impose things like this from the centre, it should be on the basis of the evidence. If it could be proved to me that imposing mayors on these 11 places would suddenly make them better run than they are, I would consider it, but I have to say that the big cities in England, taken as a whole, have been one of the success stories of local government and administration over the past 10 to 20 years. Not all of them by any means—I do not want to mention particular cities—but some have been outstandingly successful. That is under the present system, so why will having a mayor make a difference?

Unless we can be given some very clear evidence, this just seems to be policy developed on the whim of a few people at the top of and within the present Government. That is not a reason for supporting it. I accept that if something is in the coalition agreement, as a Liberal Democrat I start from the presumption that I will support it. Some things in the agreement are so important to the coalition, so crucial and critical, that even though I think they are completely bonkers, I will go through the right lobby in support of the Government. There have been certain constitutional issues recently where that has been the case. However, I do not believe that whether you have elected mayors in 11 places, or you have expensive referendums for elected mayors to decide whether to have them in London, are matters that are fundamental to the foundations of this coalition Government. So if the House of Lords booted it out or if it goes to a Division at any stage, I have to say to my own party and anyone else who wants to listen, I will find it very difficult indeed not to support the proposition.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

73A: Schedule 2, page 226, line 1, at end insert “, and giving effect to, referendum on”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

74A: Schedule 2, page 226, line 24, at end insert “, and giving effect to, referendum on”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

75A: Schedule 2, page 226, line 46, at end insert “, and giving effect to, referendum on”

Localism Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, before I say anything else, I should probably declare an interest, which I hope that I do not have to declare every time, which is that my wife is a former chairman of Braintree District Council and currently the cabinet member for planning and strategy. I hasten to add that, on this subject, we have not considered our views together, and I am not expressing her opinions—as I do on everything else, of course.

This is an unusual occasion for me. I do not usually find myself tempted to my feet by my noble friend, who is historically rather more robust than I am. I am normally seen as being on the softer side of the party. I have every sympathy what he just said. I will not elaborate, therefore, but I add a second heretical view, which is that, from what I have heard so far today—and I have reservations about parts of the Bill—we are in danger with all these definitional clauses of creating a pure lawyers’ paradise in which every decision is capable of endless judicial review to determine what these meaningless words mean. I do not encourage that.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the leader of a local authority in London. I also thank my noble friend for her earlier comments on shadow mayors, which were extremely welcome. I do not want to come between my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Lawson, but I express concern about the way in which the amendment, with its merits or otherwise, is framed. Here, I follow the remarks of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree.

The amendment as framed, which requires a local authority to exercise the power, is applied to the core general power of competence at the start of the Bill. That means that everything done by any local authority under the Bill may be subjected to the tests. Many of the tests are desirable—I certainly do not go as far as my noble friend Lord Lawson in his comments on sustainable development, which is in principle an admirable objective—but I fear that, if the amendment is applied to the Bill in general terms, the willingness to use the general power of competence may be tainted by fear of legal action. The fundamental point that I hope that we will pursue is, as I said at Second Reading, that we should do nothing to limit the power of general competence or to discourage local authorities from employing it.

It is a worthy try by my noble friend Lord Greaves, but I hope that if he wants to return to this important principle, it should not, for the reasons expressed by my noble friend Lord Newton, be applied to this part of the Bill.