Democratic Political Activity (Funding and Expenditure) Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 27th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, here we are again: the same magnificent Victorian theatre; the same Bill, in effect, as I shall show; and the same dramatis personae, with the welcome addition of the right reverend Prelate and sadly, I agree entirely, the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said about that, but that is about as far as I will go with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He ended, as Liberal Democrats so often do, with a call for consensus. But the preceding 15 minutes of his speech were partisan and often acid. Indeed, he repeated allegations which he made in March in relation to incidents which have been investigated by the legal authorities, and in respect of which no charges have been made—with no apology whatever.

I note 15 Members present on the Liberal Democrat Benches for this debate. In the previous debate, introduced by my noble friend Lord Holmes on the incredibly important issue of the scandal of the abuse of young people through unpaid internships, the Liberal Democrats could not even put up a Front-Bench spokesman on that matter. But they flock in—15 of them—for this debate. I wonder whether there is a political interest at stake here. Of course I welcome some of them, and it is particularly good to see the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, here again. In the proceedings on 10 March, which I too have read, he declared at col. 1608 that he and Ms Sarah Olney would, as he put it, “see” me “at the ballot box” in Richmond in May. Well, he and Ms Olney did come—I saw them—and Zac Goldsmith defeated them. It is great to have my honourable friend back in Parliament.

I have carefully examined the Bill and compared it with the Bill we discussed only a few months ago. There is an extra word in the Short Title—it is “Democratic Political Activity” rather than “Political Parties”. It has Latin numerals instead of Arabic ones for reference to parts of the 2000 Act—a change which, as a classicist, I cannot but welcome and think is correct, although I note one has been missed, on page 3, line 27. Dates are updated by a year to set them in the future, which is wise, and a useful explanatory parenthesis relating to your Lordships has been added to Clause 11(4)(c).

There is minor redrafting in Clause 12, relating to gift aid—a proposal I actually support. Last Session’s new condition G in Section 416 of the Income Tax Act 2007 has now become condition H. No doubt the noble Lord will explain in Committee if there is any significance in that. Another change is that the provision in Clause 17 of last year’s Bill requiring a valid candidate for European elections to have 1,000 signatures in his or her support is omitted. Is the noble Lord anticipating Brexit and not wasting time on reform of European elections? Or is it perhaps that the previous version was written before his party’s campaign for a second referendum—which the noble Lord called for again today—tanked and the party lost vote share in this year’s general election?

The very few narrow changes in Clause 20, relating to candidate expenditure, to which the noble Lord spoke, and the changes in Clause 19 relating to control of non-election expenses, reducing the limit further, present severe difficulties. They are technical, controversial and not so far the subject of consensus. I make no detailed comment, as this is outside my skill base, but I believe that assigning national expenditure to constituencies would be exceptionally difficult. Funnily enough, I instinctively welcome the idea of some limit on the tiresome bore of unsolicited digital messages based on postal codes. I am pretty sure that on this I am pretty off-message with both my Front Bench and Jeremy Corbyn’s friends in Momentum, but I will say no more in case I get an unsolicited message from Mr Jared O’Mara on the subject.

All in all, it is the same Bill as last Session, with a small addition that could have been a one-clause Bill, not a repeat of what we had before—a comprehensive attempt to rewrite the rules. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will probably say again, in my view rightly and fairly, and perhaps the noble Lord on the opposition Front Bench will agree, that these changes have to be agreed between the major parties so far as possible and made, as in the past, normally by government legislation with agreement, not a Private Member’s Bill in your Lordships’ House. Certainly any increase in taxpayer funding for political parties would be unthinkable at this or any other time, in my view. No taxpayer should have to pay more to support politicians than they do now.

Perhaps it is time to reflect on the ballot for Private Members’ Bills. This would not prevent any noble Lord bringing forward substantially the same Bill in successive Sessions, as we have here, although actually I think both Front Benches, both government and official opposition, who work so hard for us—we have two of the best of the bunch here in the shape of my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—might be spared repetitive stress syndrome on a Friday by having to deal with the same Bill after a few months. Perhaps the Procedure Committee might consider whether a second or certainly a third attempt at the same fence might not go lower in the ballot than a Bill that brought a new issue before Parliament.

I spoke on two important matters in March that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has completely ignored in his Bill. I will not repeat at length what I said; it is all in Hansard for 10 March 2017 at cols. 1602-04. I stand by every word, like he does. The issue is the inability of the Electoral Commission to order the repayment to victims of crime of political donations derived from the proceeds of crime, such as Maxwell, Asil Nadir or, more recently, the £2.5 million taken and, deplorably, kept by the Liberal Democrats from a shameless fraudster, Michael Brown, who ruined many people. All the parties that have criminal money, including my own, should repay it, but the case of the Liberal Democrats’ £2.5 million is particularly fragrant. I am sorry, I mean the opposite: flagrant. That gives me the opportunity to emphasise the point: flagrant. Shameless.

In March, my noble friend on the Front Bench encouraged me by saying this was something the Government would look at in the context of any review of Electoral Commission powers. If the noble Lord presses the Bill forward, I give notice that I will seek to amend Clause 24 to give the commission such powers and will expect the full support of the Liberal Democrats for that, with a pledge to repay the £2.5 million that Brown took. Then never again will victims of villains like Brown be turned away with impunity by a political party.

The second issue that I raised concerned a lacuna in the Representation of the People Act, which provides that a person who corruptly induces any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election by payment or offer of payment is committing an offence. I described the murky events surrounding the Richmond Park by-election in 2016, just before which it is admitted by the Green Party that an offer of £250,000 was made to promote a so-called progressive alliance between Greens and Liberal Democrats. In making this offer—self-evidently, given the fact that the Richmond Park by-election was impending—the willingness of the Green Party to withdraw its candidate and leave the field free for the Liberal Democrats, as indeed happened, would be a very material matter to the person or company waving this fat wad of money. If that were not obvious, a leaked email sent to a Kingston Green the day before its prospective candidate withdrew, reads,

“just reiterating that what I mentioned, about the party benefiting from us not standing, is confidential—please don’t circulate”.

That is the smoking gun that confirms that Kingston Greens were told that there was a direct connection between standing or not standing in Richmond Park against Mr Goldsmith and their party bosses having the chance of getting some dosh.

On the same day, there was a further illuminating exchange between two Greens. The first Green writes, in an email: “Do you know how much the amount is?”. “No, is it important?” “£250,000”. I will paraphrase the next bit because there is a right reverend Prelate present. “Just heard from Nick. Effing ‘ell”. It was rather more correctly expressed than that, but your Lordships know what I mean. Nick is widely believed to be Mr Nick Martin, chief executive of the Green Party, who clearly knows all that the public needs to know about the person or company involved. This attempted inducement was reported to the police, but prosecutors apparently decided that, as the prospective Green candidate had not yet been formally nominated, no offence was committed in her withdrawing. Furthermore, Section 107 of the Representation of the People Act has a lacuna, in that it applies to a person, not a party. I submit that it is a corruption of politics for big money to seek to procure the withdrawal of a candidate or of a party from a local or national election in any seat, and it is a corruption of politics for big money to seek to induce a prospective candidate not to seek adoption or be adopted. That needs to be exposed and stopped, and I hope that it will be addressed in law.

In conclusion, it is a stain on the high moral tone of the Green Party that it has not been prepared to disclose the identity of the person, company or party behind this offer. It is called an attempted offer; I say that it is really an attempted bribe. Caroline Lucas, the party leader, told the BBC in May that people in the Green Party knew who had made the offer but that she, very conveniently—this was on live television—had forgotten the name. There is no record of whether she sent a text message to Andrew Neil afterwards to tell him who it was when she remembered. Nick, Mr Nick Martin, is clearly one of those people in the Green Party who Caroline Lucas has said publicly knows the identity, and I call him out today in Parliament, in the name of the integrity and transparency of political party funding, to publish the identity of that attempted donor. As it is claimed that the donation was refused by the Green Party’s ethics committee, which we are told ensures that no donations are accepted, inter alia, from foreign sources, tobacco companies or other industries such as aviation, what could the Greens possibly have to hide? Surely it would put them in a good light if they saw this person off for good. Let Mr Martin also publish the minutes of the meeting of that ethics committee. Otherwise, I will seek to amend the Bill to enable the Electoral Commission to require him to do so.

Intergenerational Fairness in Government Policy

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing the debate. It has been diverting to hear about intergenerational fairness from the Benches opposite who have just elected a new leader aged 75. Could they not find anyone younger?

I agree with so much that has been said by so many but, like my noble friend Lady Altmann, I must take a different tack, because I dislike this rhetoric of intergenerational fairness. Others may respond that it is not about division but all about fairness, but calling for fairness implies that some unprincipled people are in clover at the expense of others. What increasingly echoes back from the wall of social media are the cries “unfair”, “older people are to blame” and “let’s take it back”.

My noble friend Lord Willetts, who spoke so brilliantly, as always, today, marred his important and thoughtful book with a deliberately provocative title. In it, he likened our generation, so-called baby boomers, to a “selfish giant” and said that we had, “taken our children’s future”, a phrase rehashed very swiftly by the Guardian as “stolen”.

We should be careful to avoid political rhetoric, as my noble friend lately said, that sets group against group. In particular, I deplore anything that, wittingly or unwittingly, provokes the old people of the future against the young people of the past. The excellent report of the Work and Pensions Committee in another place rightly ended with a strong warning on adversarial language. I know that is not my noble friend’s intention or that of anyone else who has spoken—quite the reverse: what an intelligent and interesting debate we have had—but what we need is not the sledgehammer of a potentially divisive soundbite or the stereotyping of groups but the scalpel of intelligent and targeted policy, at which my noble friend and so many others who have spoken excel.

“Fairness” can be measured in many varied ways and cannot be analysed in arid economic statistics alone. Young people today, and how good that is, have opportunities and advantages that young baby boomers, or indeed the silent, never had. I give a small example. For some reason, my noble friend’s Intergenerational Commission’s latest interesting publication has guacamole on its cover, coming from a continent, South America, that none of us at school ever dreamed of being able to see. In fact, I find that avocados were first sold at Sainsbury’s in 1962 and at Marks & Spencer in 1968. It goes to illustrate that the cornucopia of food choices that we have today was simply not available.

Thank God that this generation has not—yet—had to contend with 9%, 10% and far higher mortgage rates that we selfish ones did. Today, too, we have all the benefits of an information and technological revolution unknown to those of us who waited months for our first landline from the kind of state monopoly that the party opposite wants to bring back. Frankly, how infuriating it has been for so many older people to watch on while Governments led by those who are now our juniors ravaged the pensions system, stoked a housing asset bubble—as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said, through quantitative easing, pummelling savers along the way—and piled unimaginable quantities of debt on future generations. There are two recent Chancellors whom I will not name who bear a heavy responsibility for that.

Let us not fall for a lump of prosperity fallacy to be addressed by taxing Doris to pay Dan. High tax is part of the problem for us all. Most older people want to see what they have built going to help their children and grandchildren, but inheritance tax take is projected to rise by 30% in the next five years, with the state destroying £27.7 billion of potential family support by 2022.

Housing is an issue. I agree with many of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Best. By the way, I would look at allowing councils to give themselves planning permission to build on unused public sector brown land where the owners are unwilling or require execution of planning permissions given. High stamp duty, as others have said, has been a disaster. In many areas, starter homes have disappeared as people have extended up and out rather than move out and pay the tax. Indeed, the small, two-bedroom house where I started a family with my wife is now a 4.5-bedroom house, inaccessible to a young family for this very reason. The take from this distorting tax is planned to rise by over 60% by 2022, with the Treasury grabbing £74 billion in the next five years from the aspiration to own a new home.

I would not have introduced or sustained the triple lock. I would have ended the extension of the welfare state to the well off through universal winter fuel payments, universal free school meals and so-called free 30 hours of childcare. I would look at a capital contribution to the cost of care at home. Parties opposite, as well as the incompetence of my own party, bear a heavy blame for the shameful role they had in stifling discussion on such options. There is much, as so many in the debate have wisely said, that we can and should do, but let it not be couched in the language of “we woz robbed”.

As I face sitting down again with an attack of sciatica, I recall the end of Compton Mackenzie’s Sinister Street, where the main character is overheard musing on the tragedies of youth. A passer-by comments, “There is only one tragedy for youth”. “And that is”? “Age”, said the stranger. Youth and age are concepts experienced by all who are fortunate enough to live long in the same mind and the same body. We are all one. Each generation and each age group faces its own varied and diverse challenges, measured against diverse attitudes and aspirations, as does each person. For all its indignities, even old age today is enriched and eased today by things we never had in the past. How bitter a gall it would be if, by provoking fear of so-called intergenerational unfairness, we set the youth of the present against the youth of the past. That would indeed be a tragedy, for youth and age alike.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 8th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am too polite to return the noble Lord’s words to him, but his entertaining speech rather reminded me of why I joined the Conservative Party. I do have a beef, which is that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, came first in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills and I came 60th out of 61. Therefore I am a little vexed that he has used this privilege of coming out top to rehash last year’s mashed potatoes—the Bill that failed. The garnish is different but the effect is the same. I am a member of the Procedure Committee of your Lordships’ House but I do not speak as a member. However, we might, in looking at the ballot system, see that it does not privilege someone who had a Bill the previous Session to bring it back in the following Session. Perhaps, as we have been told by many noble Lords in this debate, opportunity should be spread a little wider.

The noble Lord’s Bill has several defects. First, in my judgment—many have spoken on this—it removes the incentive for agreement on final reform that was deliberately left in the statutes of this land in 1999. The 1999 agreement secured the programme of the Labour Government, in which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was PPS to the Prime Minister. Perhaps he knew something about it. Under that agreement, hundreds of our Members left. However, the basis of it was that they would remain and be replaced, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as “a guarantee” that a final reform of the House would be agreed. That agreement was, as the noble and learned Lord said,

“binding in honour on all those”,—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

who came to subscribe to it. As one who played a part in negotiating the details of it, I feel so bound and I oppose the Bill.

I am always interested to listen to my noble friend Lady D’Souza when she speaks on matters that affect the reputation of the House. However, I strongly reject her statement that this sense of honour is any sense contrived. It is not contrived, and many people hold it firmly. I also disagree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which was a typical lawyer’s point—a correct point—that of course Parliament is not bound: the law can be changed by Parliament. But there is a world beyond the square mile around the Inns of Court, and in politics it is sometimes not what you can do but what you should do. This agreement should not be repudiated.

I agreed with the speech made by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, which I thought was extremely interesting, as did many others in the House, and a matter that might be looked at. The original reason for the strange colleges is because, I recall, it was pressed for by the Government. The Labour Party was concerned that Labour Peers would not be elected. That would not be the case, and it could be re-examined.

My second objection to the Bill is that it would create an all-appointed House by stealth. That has never been put before the British people at any general election this century and it should not be accomplished by a Private Member’s Bill in the Lords. Others have spoken on that. The third matter is that the Bill is partisan in its effect. It would strike disproportionately at the Conservative Party, and quite fast. Some 26 Conservative elected hereditary Peers are over 70, nine are over 75, five over 80, and five over 85. They would no longer be replaced. When I raised this with the noble Lord last year, he said that that could be dealt with by appointing another couple of dozen Conservative life Peers. That is not a tune we hear so very much from the Benches opposite, nor would it be welcomed by the House. Will the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench say whether that would happen—would Labour support Conservative life Peers to replace hereditaries that went?

The final defect of the Bill is a glaring one, which is that it attacks the speck of dust—the by-election system—but spectacularly fails to tackle the most glaring defect in numbers in this House: the massive overrepresentation of Liberal Democrat Peers, who are sworn to use their unelected position to foil the will of the British people in the referendum. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, agrees with me on that. If only he had used his luck in the ballot to introduce a Bill to deal with that, they might have cheered him on in Tory Telford, where the candidate wearing the rosette of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, lost her deposit with a reasonable 900 votes. The threat of obstructionism by those Benches over there is a major and present constitutional danger to what the people of Telford voted for by a majority of 24,000. Hereditary by-elections are not. I oppose the Bill.

Political Parties (Funding and Expenditure) Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 10th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on bringing forward this Bill. I congratulate him particularly on talking about the need to control big money donations in the week that his party leader has been exalting in press releases a £1 million donation and surpassing the money received by the Labour Party. Anyone who heard the brilliant speech by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition on the notification of withdrawal Bill will not be surprised to learn that it is possible for the Liberal party leadership to be exalting a £1 million donation at one end of Parliament while here they are being attacked. Despite all that, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because he is always very assiduous on these matters and important to listen to, and a number of the ideas in the Bill—he did not speak about it very much—deserve careful consideration. In particular, there is a good case for extending gift aid to personal political donations, particularly at the local level, where political service in local communities is objectively little different from other forms of voluntary service for the public good.

Before I go any further, I must restrain myself. The cynic in me, which sadly occasionally gnaws its way through my customary civility to the Liberal Democrats, tempts me to say that some might see Part 1 of Schedule 2, entitled “Limits on campaign expenditure”, and the noble Lord’s condemnation of busloads of activists being taken to elections as perhaps a little rich in a Bill that is commended by the party opposite. However, this being Lent, I will restrain myself. As the Bishops’ Benches are empty, I say that I think we should all reflect on verse 7, chapter 8 of the gospel according to St John. To paraphrase, let the party that is without sin cast the first stone.

The noble Lord referred to things that are not in the Bill, and I would like to refer to two potential lacunae in the law that I think are important: first, the reception of donations that are later found to be the direct proceeds of crime; and secondly, the risk of corrupt attempts to induce a political party not to put up a candidate in an election. On the first point, I take as my test case that of Michael Brown, convicted in 2008 for theft, furnishing false information and seeking to pervert the course of justice. As is well known, he later broke bail as a fugitive from justice.

In 2005, Brown donated £2.4 million to the Liberal Democrats in just seven weeks. Before anyone says that I have just forgotten John chapter 8 verse 7, I would point out that the Maxwell and the Asil Nadir cases show that all parties have encountered this problem, so let the party that is without sin cast the first stone. But three wrongs do not make a right, and I am focusing on the Brown case because it took place after the establishment of the Electoral Commission and it clearly shows the inability of the commission to secure the return of donations that are the proceeds of criminal enterprise. An impermissible donation may be required to be returned, with a sanction in some cases, while a donation made that is later found to be from the proceeds of crime may not.

The only issue in law that the Electoral Commission can pursue is whether the donation appeared reasonably to be permissible at the time it was given, and that broadly, in the case of a company—in this case Brown’s company, 5th Avenue Partners—is whether it is incorporated in the UK and trading. That is something we are told in the entertaining memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I am always pleased to plug the works of a former fellow Richmond councillor. He says that the Metropolitan Police Special Branch told the Liberal Democrats at the time that 5th Avenue Partners was trading legitimately. It is therefore immaterial that it was later proved in the courts that the donating company was operating as the front for a massive fraud. Paragraph 3.7 of the Electoral Commission’s later report on the case implied that three donations to the Liberal Democrats, one of £100,000, another of £151,000 and a third of £632,000, were made up of money put into the company by defrauded would-be investors which was flipped by Brown into political donations.

The court found that Brown had fleeced at least £36 million from people who thought they were investing in a successful hedge fund that was being run by the son of a Peer. I never understand why people find it so beguiling, when they are approached by someone who claims to be the son of a Peer, that they hand over their money. One person gave more than £8 million, a very unfortunate individual whose name is well known. But no action could be taken to recover the funds that later were found to be the proceeds of criminal enterprise.

One of Brown’s victims, Mr. P., took the case to the parliamentary ombudsman, who found against the Electoral Commission on certain grounds of negligence, as he saw it, but the commission did not accept all those findings and the matter was effectively closed. The party kept the money, as in the past the Maxwell and the Nadir had been kept, and the victims lived with the loss. There is a clear inequity here and a divergence between the treatment of what is found, albeit in good faith on the part of a party, to be an impermissible donation at the time and one which is later found to come from criminal fraud. If this Bill goes forward to Committee the issue should be addressed.

The second matter I wish to raise relates to the murky affair of a £250,000 donation offered by a still anonymous individual or company to the Green Party in the context of a discussion about whether the Greens should put up a candidate in the Richmond Park by-election and give a free run to the Liberal Democrats. That this attempted donation was made is not denied; quite the reverse. A report from the Kingston Green Party declares that:

“Party staff added pressure to—


Kingston Green Party—

“activists, saying in confidence, that the party staff were keen for us to agree to stand down. This was because there would be serious, but confidential, implications for the national party—so serious that they could even affect the jobs of party staff—in the event that we did not do so. Later ... it was clarified by Party staff (ostensibly on the instructions of the Chief Executive) that this related to a donation of some £250,000 that was conditional on the party showing its seriousness about the ‘progressive alliance’ initiative”—

between the Greens and the Liberal Democrats.

Prima facie, on the evidence of those most actively involved, there was an inducement of around a quarter of a million pounds on offer for the Greens not to oppose the Liberal Democrats, either here or more widely. This was not denied by the Green Party. Indeed it has been reported, first, that a central staff member did discuss the proposed donation with local Green Party members, but that that was “an error”. That is the usual excuse of overzealous officials that comes up in so many cover-ups. Furthermore, the Green Party has subsequently said that the donation was considered but rejected by the party’s own ethics committee, which we are told ensures that no donations are accepted, inter alia, from foreign sources, tobacco companies or other industries such as aviation. In other words, the offer was made and considered by the Green Party. It was used in argument within the party to seek to induce people not to come forward or wish to come forward to be candidates, but was eventually rejected.

It is true that the Green Party has denied that the attempted donation was contingent on this one specific seat being vacated for the Liberal Democrats, but that does not rule out its being part of an inducement to a wider “progressive alliance” in which the two parties involved would agree not to contest a number of agreed seats. Emails are available in which the leader of the Liberal party on Kingston Council, Councillor Liz Green, is seeking to reach such arrangements with local Greens, and it is noteworthy that Caroline Lucas, the Green MP who is facing boundary changes, showed an uncommon interest in this matter.

I asked the Electoral Commission if it was minded to investigate this attempted donation, but it said that “corrupt withdrawal from candidacy” was a matter not for the commission but for the police. It was the commission’s understanding that the matter might have been reported to the police, but a police spokesman, who I cordially thank and who was perhaps unable to establish the position in the time available, said after making inquiries that he was unaware of such an investigation. I think there should be an investigation, and if no one else has done so, I would consider writing to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner myself.

Section 107 of the Representation of the People Act reads as follows, after the side heading, “Corrupt Withdrawal from candidature”:

“Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment”.


What is not clear to me from this is that if a corrupt inducement to a party not to put forward a candidate, which can result as in this case in subsequent pressure on activists not to stand, is equally a criminal offence under the Act. Of course, in the circumstances in which parties have absolute control of the party badge—and rightly so—at elections, if the party does not lend its support, no one can stand as a candidate using the Green Party name.

In my judgment it should be a criminal offence to seek to induce a party not to put up a candidate by the offer of money. A police investigation in this case could readily establish the identity of the persons involved, including the would-be offerer of the donation, something on which the Green Party should come clean. I challenge the party to do so. What possible reason can there be for a political party to hide the identity of a would-be donor which the party itself has now admitted is unethical? The party could release that information at a stroke and we might then be better able to establish the real truth behind this murky affair.

I submit that if Section 107 does not cover inducements to parties not to permit candidates to go forward in certain seats, it should be revised to do so. I hope that some of the other matters raised in the Bill will be proceeded with and that the two issues I have highlighted in my remarks will also be considered.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord True Excerpts

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I have Amendments 122, 125 and 126 in this group. I will speak to them very briefly and look forward to the noble Lord’s response to the points I raise. Amendments 122 and 125 seek to make the situation clearer and to avoid the suggestion that a beneficial interest may exist, by removing the words,

“on behalf of the other”.

We do not think those words are necessary, and I propose to remove them in Amendments 122 and 125.

Amendment 126 would insert a new subsection into Clause 32, which would ensure that the GLA, TfL or a mayoral development corporation has the power to acquire land compulsorily for purposes under the Housing and Planning Act if it was previously able to do that under Sections 403A and 403B of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I hope that we again get a positive response from the Minister accepting that I have highlighted an important issue to which, if nothing else, the Government will respond on Report.

[Lord True (Con)]

I see the wisdom of what is proposed in these amendments, reinforced by government Amendment 124, where an MDC is involved. I take it that it means only one compulsory order so that TfL is able to acquire land to advance housing projects, et cetera.

This may be my ignorance or otiose, but it appears that the way that this is drafted, based on the Greater London Act, TfL could exercise this new authority only in concert with the GLA or an MDC. However, there are other development authorities and planning authorities in Greater London: the London boroughs. I can envisage circumstances where there is neglected land alongside on a red route where TfL is the highways authority and a borough has an interest, but it may be too small to attract the interest of the Mayor of London. I simply raise the question to seek elucidation. It may not be necessary. Will it be possible when this is liberalised for TfL to use this power in concert with a borough without needing to go via the GLA or to set up a mayoral development corporation?

TfL gets cross when I say this in your Lordships’ House, but it is not always the most nimble authority when it comes to development. Some boroughs might be able to encourage it a little. I do not expect an answer now, but perhaps my noble friend will consider the need for such flexibility if TfL is to be given this new partnership power to acquire.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend Lord True invites me to go way beyond my negotiating remit by extending to London boroughs the powers under the clause, which is intended to remove an existing duplication. However, I will of course consider his suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I wholly support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, just said, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said in introducing this debate. The matter that concerns the Delegated and Regulatory Reform Committee is on page 9 of its report, at paragraph 54. Not only is the power “very wide” in scope, but it,

“is to make whatever provisions—including ones amending and repealing Acts of Parliament … We note that it has become standard practice for provisions of this type to be included near the end of a Bill”.

This is appearing all the time. It is really an insurance policy: “We might make a mistake, and if we make a mistake we do not want to have the trouble of admitting it; we will just get some secondary instrument through Parliament, and that will be all that we have to do”. That is not a sufficient justification for such a wide power.

The committee suggested that at the very least, the power could be restricted by some type of objective test of necessity: to where it is necessary—to “where we have made a mistake” if you like—or to where something important has been omitted. We need something that gives substantive limitation to such a widely expressed power.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, although I feel rather rash in doing so after the compelling interventions we have heard. As I understand it, this power applies to any enactment, not just, as the noble and learned Lord said—I am sure misspeaking—to what is in this enactment. My position is as a lay person, but also someone who was for a long time in the usual channels, interested in the drafting of legislation and how that was done by a Government whom I opposed for 13 years. I have to say that we would have looked a little askance at this sort of thing in those years in opposition. I understand the innocent intent and perfect integrity of the present Ministers involved, but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rather anticipated my thought: if clear drafting instructions are given on what is required to be enacted and a Bill is properly drafted by expert draftsmen, there should be no need for the sweeping brush to be around afterwards. That is really how legislation should be presented to Parliament.

This is the second piece of planning legislation we have had in a year. I submit that there has been time to think through these things, but it is the wider point that concerns me. This is not an ad hominem, or a criticism of Ministers here, but this will become a practice—I was struck by that paragraph in the Delegated Powers Committee report. It will become part of the constitution if Parliament continues to accept, in Act after Act, that Ministers of the day can be given power to change any other enactment as a result of something that arises out of their further ruminations or representations on it. I hope that my noble friend will consider this carefully.

The other thing I would say, in the broader context of planning and the challenge of getting more housing and more things done, is that there is immense distrust out there—anyone who lives with the planning system knows the distrust and fear that people have that the system is loaded against them. The system is actually fair, and bends over backwards to try to be fair, but if government arms itself with powers to change the rules if something does not quite work out as might have been intended in the first place—instead of building that consent for new planning and new development that I want, and which I know the Government want—it may add to the sense, so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, that the system is loaded. That must be something to avoid. Although my main objection is on the wider constitutional principle, as a practitioner—a local authority leader who has to stand between the forces of government and popular feeling—and as a layman, I argue that we should be particularly cautious in the context of this legislation.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 9th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, I support the two previous interjections. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for many years of toil, with others, in the modernisation and reform group which he has led. I came into this House in 2004. I have always regarded myself as a friend of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and he of me—we know each other well. I regard the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as a man of great wisdom and as a hard-working and diligent Peer—in fact, we are all effectively full-time working Peers nowadays, which counts for a lot. However, I beg the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, as a friend, to reconsider pressing these amendments, with the damage that they will do to the reputation of this House. I ask him to think again and to bear in mind the suggestions that have been made already by people with more authority than me in these matters, hoping that he and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will have the courage and wisdom to respond.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I had a small walk-on part—not as distinguished as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—in 1999 and remember well the statesmanlike endeavour undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and the then Lord Cranborne, now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. They effected an extremely difficult compromise, which did not give satisfaction on all sides, to enable an important piece of constitutional reform to go forward. It was a distinguished piece of statesmanship, a compromise was made and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said at the time in this House that it would remain “binding in honour” on all those who had taken any part in it. When I first came to this House, I was told that the one thing that a Member of your Lordships’ House had to do was to stand on his or her honour. I would therefore find it extremely difficult, short of the final reform of this House, to accept the removal and breaking of that compromise which enabled a great piece of legislation to be passed by the party opposite.

It is disappointing that a mugging party has arisen attacking my noble friend even before we have entered fully into the debate on this subject. It is not much of a filibuster by my noble friend, who spoke for just two minutes. I have heard more effective filibusters in my time.

I would hope that a sensible spirit of compromise could emerge. I discussed these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I understand that people opposed to the hereditary principle want to see it removed from the House. Most hereditary Peers I speak to—I should make it clear to those who are not aware that I am certainly not a hereditary Peer— do not object to the principle being removed from the House. The question is how, when and in what circumstances.

I concede that another reason why you might wish to remove hereditary Peers—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not have this purpose—is to secure some party advantage. Clearly, these Benches and the Cross-Benches have more to lose from the removal of the hereditary Peers than the Labour Party or the Liberals. There is a party political issue that needs to be discussed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would consider that, but it is another matter to be considered.

I am pleased that the Government said—if it is what they said—that this Bill should not go forward. This chip needs to remain on the table. Of course, the ultimate intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and my noble friend Lord Salisbury at the time was that we would get to a place where the House would be reformed.

My noble friend Lord Cormack is a rather more regular speaker than I am, so perhaps he will allow me some comment on this subject. He said what a scandal it is that some Peers are here on only three votes but I am here on the vote of one person, by patronage. We should be a bit more cautious in being high and mighty about the methods by which certain noble Lords get here, when each one of us was happy enough to catch the eye of a selector, be it Tony Blair, Mr Ashdown, Mr Cameron or whoever it might have been.

The hereditary system we have now is a funny one but I have only one amendment tabled and that is to draw attention to the disproportionate representation of the very Benches that said, “Hear, hear”, when my noble friend Lord Cormack said that it was pretty odd that the hereditary Peers are here. I think it is pretty odd that there are a hundred of those chaps over there.

[Lord Cormack]

I said no such thing. I did not say that it was odd that they were here. I paid particular tribute to what they do. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not make any of them leave. I am concerned about the reputation of the House and the method by which they are selected. Also, I made it quite plain that the Government said the Bill would not pass, so why the worry?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am responding to three speeches that said it was quite unnecessary for my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to do what he is doing. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I will leave the point of honour before the House. I will leave the point of selection by patronage before the House. I will leave the point that by pushing hereditary Peers out of the House, you will not end the House of Lords question. All that will happen is that we lose the successors of some very effective people in this House.

I just add one other thing. I have here before me what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said on 30 March 1999. I agreed strongly with it then and agree with it now. One of the things we discussed in the official group was how the hereditary Peers should be replaced while this compromise continued. The noble and learned Lord, and the Government, said they were not prepared to accept a system whereby Members of this House would choose who stayed and who came in, in what he described as “rather invidious” club rules. In fact, he spoke of,

“The rather invidious proposition that life Peers should have a vote in these elections and pass judgment on the comparative merits of their … colleagues”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

Many of those who wish to end the election of hereditary Peers under the system we have now are the very same people who want a system where life Peers in this place pass judgment on who should stay—where the awkward squad and those who are independent minded might be pushed out. As this debate goes forward, that proposition deserves every bit as much scrutiny as the role and place of hereditary Peers in this House.

To conclude, I will stand on the point of honour. I have only one amendment and have not made a filibuster but made points that I believe are of great importance and which remain as valid today as they did in 1999.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

The noble Lord referred to my speech. He said that we have to prevent top-ups. A few sentences before, he said that of course the Prime Minister could appoint others to replace those who go. By his own words, the question of size is not relevant. He also said that no Parliament can bind its successors. Perhaps that is why the Liberal Democrats have been so quick to remember their policy that numbers here should reflect votes cast in the previous general election.

[Lord Rennard]

If the noble Lord accepts the principle that representation here should be reflective of votes cast in the past election, I would welcome his support for that principle in the House of Commons also.

House of Lords Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 21st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with most of the wise words of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Elton on the way in which he has introduced the Bill; he is a great ornament to the House and his wisdom is respected by us all. However, I confess to a mild dulling of the senses when another Bill comes forward to reform your Lordships’ House: three Bills up and more than six months still to go in this Session—perhaps we are trying for the record in the number of discussions of ways to reform ourselves. I sometimes think that there are greater priorities to discuss.

Of the schemes advanced, that of my noble friend may in many ways be the least bad; indeed, if we are to accept the proposition, which I do not, that there should be a cull of the numbers in the House which did not pretend to be reform—and this is certainly not real reform—then a proposition that imitated for the life Peers what happened to the hereditary Peers in 1999 is clearly one logical way to proceed.

However, I am afraid that I share the view of those who have said that limiting the numbers in the House is not a tearing need. I do not often feel that I need sharp elbows here, nor do I think it a disaster if a great Chamber of a great Parliament is sometimes crowded on a great occasion. What is so wrong with that? Nobody outside here has ever tugged me angrily by the sleeve and said, “By God, we need to reduce the number of Lords by a hundred or two”.

The problem that some noble Lords do not wish to face is that if there are people out there who want real reform of the Lords, their beef is not that we have more than enough life Peers to ride into the Valley of Death at Balaclava but that we have any appointed Peers at all in the 21st century. I have never hidden the fact, uncongenial though I know it is to many of your Lordships, that I would have no objection to standing for election to the political Benches—after all, I face the electorate daily in my day job—but if we are to have election, the daringly modern part of me would rather that the electorate of the political Peers were the British people and not the Bishops’ Bar.

I do not follow my noble friend with this Bill, however well intentioned it is; but if we are to proceed, I agree with what has been said: that much of the material in the Standing Orders will have to be discussed in detail. Let me give just a couple of examples.

First, there is the problem of even a periodic limit on the size of the House, alluded to by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. The five-year cull, as I understand it, would cut the size of the House to 600. Then—and I must make it clear that I make no objection to this, for with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act preventing Dissolution, a cap on the size of the House that does not allow a Government to swamp this House in the case of a constitutional crisis is unacceptable—my noble friend’s Bill rightly allows for creations after every cull. However, as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said, the effect of that could be that a Prime Minister could pump the numbers back up from 600 to 800 and those new loyalist Peers would then weigh the percentage size of the various party colleges in the next Parliament. There could be a ratchet towards a party in office that did not show the restraint in creations that Prime Ministers should show. We all know that the real root of the matter is the rash of creations by Prime Ministers, excepting Gordon Brown and Ted Heath—there have been a few who have shown restraint. We should not appoint more Peers than, frankly and bluntly, die. So the ratchet would be a problem.

The second potential objection—which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Caithness, although I fear I have to be a little blunter than he was—is why on earth should the proportion of Liberal Democrat Peers in this House be frozen by paragraph (6) of my noble friend’s draft Standing Order? The Lib Dems won 7.9% of the vote at the last election. They now have 13.2% of the whole House and 17.9% of the political House. Under that party’s policy, until the 2015 election made it rather inconvenient and awkward for them, the number of Lib Dem Peers reflecting the votes cast at the election would not be 104 but 62 on the eligible House basis and 46 on the narrower political base. I could not support any propositions, such as those of my noble friend, which entrenched such a gross over-representation in this House of a party represented by eight in the other place. I calculate that the effect of the Standing Order as drafted would be 79 Lib Dem Peers in a House of 600 if we used the 13.2% number or 107 in a political House-only calculation.

My third point, alluded to by the right reverend Prelate in some telling remarks, relates to the treatment of newer Peers. I have always found very distasteful the underlying messages of those who say that because there are too many of us, either at the long-serving end, “Bring in an age limit; you are 75 and past your sell-by date, you must go”; or, at the newer end, “There are too many like you coming in, not of the right calibre and we have to stop it”. I do not care for either of those messages, but I read in my noble friend’s draft Standing Order that anyone who has been appointed to the House after the first Session of the preceding Parliament—in other words, less than five years before each cull—would have no vote in the quinquennial balloon debate about who should be chucked out, in that they are not deemed to have served for a whole Parliament. I understand the idea, though I do not agree with it, that new bugs don’t know enough to be allowed a say, but surely by the time they have worked their way up to C or even B block they might actually have enough knowledge to cast a vote. I appreciate that my noble friend’s intention may be to deny a voice to nominations made after each cull, but we cannot presume that every new Peer is a party hack incompetent to judge fairly. As I read this provision, it is fairly demeaning and we will need to look at it as it goes forward.

As I have taken a little time, I shall stray no further into what I think is an absolute mare’s nest of probing amendments, bringing into the Bill some of the Standing Orders that we will have to have if the Bill goes forward. However, I will speak about the process involved, following on from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, but in a slightly different guise. People have said that the process of choice is difficult. Of course it is. I have been rejected at the ballot box and I have won at the ballot box, but the problem with this proposition as it is emerging is that in my judgment it risks empowering a club mentality. One can imagine the grey suits of the “Campaign for Effective Peers”, or whatever it is called, chewing over who might stay. The people who would stay might be the product of a consensus into which some are either not privileged to be invited or not inclined to join. Had I not known my noble friend Lord Goodlad better, I might have thought that the conclusion of his speech was a veiled threat to the inconvenient and those who do not fit the consensus, that if they do not pipe down they may not be chosen. I do not wish to go down that road; perhaps I misinterpreted my noble friend, but with his Whips’ Office experience, I doubt it.

I fear that it would be divisive, alter behaviour, have the perverse effect of raising attendance levels in every pre-election Session, as Peers try to catch the eyes of the selector or to join the consensus, and would inevitably prove hurtful to the losers, many of whom make a good, if occasional, contribution but might not make it, perhaps for lack of knowledge through the straitened gates of a cull. On balance, therefore, I would prefer it if my noble friend were to leave what is reasonably well alone.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I will intervene because, technically, my Amendment 123E would be pre-empted if Amendment 123D were agreed. I would be very happy if Amendment 123D were agreed and I support it. I am very grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for what she said. Unfortunately, I was away from the internet over the weekend and was in the town hall until the House sat. Otherwise, I would have made it clear that I would have been happy for a number of my amendments to be in this group. It would have been more helpful to the House to have one debate. Indeed, we just have, because the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, spoke with great passion to his Amendment 123, which would leave out the whole thing but which is not, technically, before the House. The noble Lord does not need to repeat that speech on the next group, if such a debate happens.

In Committee, I raised a point which I believe to be fundamental, as does the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss it with the Minister and her officials. The planning system must not be seen by the public to be bought. The Minister has said absolutely clearly that the decision must be independent and taken by the local authority, not taken by or influenced by a paid advocate bought and working for one of the parties to an application. As I always say, good policy has to reflect what happens in real life. In real life, a developer will seek a planning application; many people will object to it. We may not agree with those objections but they will be made, so it will come before a planning committee for determination.

I spoke in favour of an experiment with the private sector, as did my noble friend Lord Porter of Spalding. I do not agree with the comminations from the other side, but my noble friend needs to go just one step further. That is reflected in my Amendment 121E, which comes in the next group. As I said in Committee, a report is tabled at a planning committee with a statement recommending permission or rejection. If members of the public, particularly those who are objecting to an application, come to the meeting and see that the recommendation is being made or spoken to by somebody who is paid to do a job by one of the parties to the application, that will be seen as unfair and corrupt, even if it is not.

I do not intend to press my amendments; I am quite happy not to move Amendment 121E if the Minister can say that the assurance she has given will also apply to advice to planning committees—that it should be perceived as independent and not given by a paid advocate who tables a report to members saying they should give permission. If she can, a lot of the objections would potentially fall away. Amendment 122A would be otiose, because it is designed only to ensure that if someone is paid to give advice, they should be made to declare that they are a paid advocate, rather than independent. We could then part happily. I might be interested in taking part in these experiments. I hope the Minister will also take heed of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said: there should be variety. My own authority, for example, is going into a shared management arrangement with another local authority. Inventive local authorities should be given the opportunity to suggest forms of experiment. That was an interesting proposal and I hope the Minister will be ready to listen to it.

Having been led to speak on the basis that one of my amendments would be pre-empted, I am essentially asking my noble friend to go one step further and say that the public who turn up will not hear or see a report saying “recommend” from somebody who is paid. If she can, much of the need for the amendments I have tabled would fall away.

If the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is going to lead a frontal assault, I certainly would not want my Amendment 124A to be grouped with his because I shall be voting against his proposal. However, how the fee arrangements would actually work needs further clarification; we have heard little from the Front Bench. My noble friend Lady Williams said that there would be no two-tier system. That needs clarification, but provided there could be assurance of further consideration of that point, when the time comes I would be prepared not to move my Amendment 124A.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 120A and 121. I was going to try to stick to the proper script but, given that everybody before me has left the running order and spoken about the things they are really interested in, I am going to do the same. First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for listening to what was said last week and to what local government has been saying for a number of weeks, and for clarifying how some of this pilot stuff will work.

Since I am on my feet, I am going to speak to fees. I am in favour of private sector competition on the basis that I honestly believe it will drive fees up. It is the first time I can recall having private sector competition to drive up the cost of a service, but I think this will do it. At the moment, we are spending about £150 million a year as taxpayers subsidising the planning system, and we have spent £450 million over the past three years doing it. Clearly, the fee structure does not recoup the full costs. If the private sector is going to come in and compete against us, it is going to want at least to cover its costs. Even if it is doing it for a few years as a loss leader, it is not going to want to lose a lot of money, so local government should be able to get its fees set at a much higher rate. That will allow us to staff our planning departments to a much more suitable level, given the demand that will be coming through, and that will allow local government to win the competition hands down because the public will trust what we are delivering and any sensible developer will want to go through an established route rather than risk competition in the private sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that an impact assessment had said that competition reduced the cost of refuse collection by about 20%. Ours has been brought back in-house since I have been leader and that has saved 20%. While private sector competition should be encouraged, it is not always the route that the final decision should go down.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

121E: Clause 145, page 75, line 4, at end insert “except for—
(i) the compilation of a report for a meeting of the planning, planning sub-committee, development control committee or other committee of the local planning authority convened to determine the application concerned, unless that report has been approved by a planning officer independent of the applicant, and(ii) the provision of a recommendation to the determining committee as to how to determine the application, which must always be made by an officer independent of the applicant or of objectors,”

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am moving this amendment because my noble friend has said she wishes to reply to it. I would have been quite happy to waive it, have it subsumed and not move the amendment. However, the point remains absolutely fundamental, and with great respect to my noble friend she has not answered it. I hope she will in her response.

What actually happens at a planning committee is that people, many of them objectors, file into the room, papers are laid, a determination is made on the basis of advice, which is public advice, a public document, and an officer advises the committee on what is the appropriate and right thing to do. All that I am asking—surely, in equity, it is not a difficult thing to ask, nor difficult for the Government to concede—is that everything to do with the final recommendation and determination is independent of the paid advocacy of one of the parties involved. That is what this lengthy amendment is intended to ensure. It is totally unnecessary if the Government will give an assurance that they will deliver that in the regulations, so that the determination can be independent, and seen to be independent by those who may not be happy with the advocate’s case. It will normally be the advocate of the person seeking permission who will have paid for the independent advice. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I will not repeat the detail of what we have already done to strengthen Clauses 145 to 148 but turn straight to the amendments.

Although I cannot accept Amendment 121E from my noble friend Lord True, I agree with its intent and commit to take the issue away and address it in the design of the pilots and regulations. Authorities have said clearly to us that it will be very inefficient if designated persons do all the background work but they are required to review it all and then pull together their own recommendation in a report that they write. They are not saying to us that they must make the recommendation or write their own report. Instead, they are saying that simple and efficient mechanisms are needed to ensure that quality and impartiality are maintained. This amendment could lead to inefficient behaviour.

Authorities have also said that designated persons must share some of the risk and cost of defending appeals. I am concerned that the amendment could make it harder to argue that designated persons should share any risks which will concern authorities. There is a complex set of interrelated issues which we need to explore in detail with authorities to avoid perverse behaviours and outcomes. We will explore a range of safeguards. I ask noble Lords to let us explore them with authorities and bring them forward in regulations. We would be very happy to have further discussions with my noble friend and others about how we can best do that. I hope that reassures him that we will take this away.

I am afraid I cannot accept Amendment 122 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, limiting ‘designated persons’ to local authorities and public bodies and ruling out private sector companies and individuals. This amendment says, “It is the public sector way and there is no other way”. In contrast to noble Lords, the dozen or so local authorities considering being a pilot area are not arguing for the exclusion of the private sector. They believe that they can compete with it and, indeed, beat it. If that is the case, what have local authorities got to fear? If they provide the best service, they will hold on to the business. We believe that the concerns at the heart of this amendment are about any potential for the private sector to have undue influence on planning decisions, and we believe these can be managed.

We have strengthened planning authorities’ retention of decision-making during the pilots following concerns expressed in Committee. Our amendments mean that regulations cannot contain anything that allows an authority to delegate decision-making to designated persons and make clear that advice from designated persons will not be binding on authorities. However, other safeguards will also exist. We will set out high professional standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, outlined, drawing on codes of conduct such as that of the Royal Town Planning Institute, which requires competence, honesty, integrity and independent professional judgment from its members. We will remove someone’s designation where they fail continually to meet these high standards. We expect to prevent designated persons processing applications in which they, their company or its subsidiaries have any interest. I have committed to explore how we can maintain high-quality, independent advice being presented to decision-makers and having designated persons list their interest with authorities, as suggested by my noble friend Lord True. Section 327A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that where the necessary procedures have not been followed appropriately an application can be declared null and void. We believe that enabling the private sector to compete with local planning authorities is likely to drive greater reform.

Some in local government have said that it may not be possible to process some applications, such as householder applications, for a price even close to the fee. Our initial dialogue with the private sector indicates that it might indeed be possible to process such applications, and we want to test this belief.

Finally, I cannot accept Amendments 123 to 126 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham. We all want a planning system fit for the 21st century, so we believe that, in order to achieve it, it would be wrong not to explore alternative delivery models for handling planning applications. Currently, local planning authorities have a monopoly which denies the user choice and does not incentivise service innovation and the provision of the most efficient and effective service. Alongside this, reform of planning departments lags behind most other local authority services. Local authorities can do a lot more to transform their planning departments. Indeed, many have introduced new ways of operating and have shown that performance can be improved and costs reduced, but we believe that more should follow their lead.

We have heard concerns about the undue potential influence of the private sector in the pilots. My noble friend Lady Williams has laid amendments to strengthen local authorities’ decision-making function, and I have set out other safeguards we intend to put in place. I have also committed to explore proposals raised by my noble friend Lord True. Your Lordships’ House has been concerned about the lack of detail about how the pilots will operate. Our amendments mean that we will debate the regulations in this House following a consultation before pilot schemes can come into force. Noble Lords have queried whether we intend to evaluate the pilot, and we have laid an amendment committing us to sharing our assessment of the pilots in the House. The RTPI and the LGA rightly highlight areas where we need carefully to consider the design of the pilots, and we will work with them to explore their ideas, but they have not opposed the principle of the pilots. Local authorities are telling us that we are right to challenge the current delivery model and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Porter, some want to be pilot areas. Despite this, the noble Lords opposite want to say that they cannot.

We listened very carefully to the debate in Committee and today, and I believe we have taken significant steps to ensure that the pilots are workable and to address many of the concerns that noble Lords have raised. I hope that, with these reassurance and the commitments I have made in these remarks, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. She is right to say that on this subject the Government have listened, and are listening, carefully. That is entirely welcome and I am grateful for it. Not only will I shortly withdraw Amendment 121E but, as I indicated previously, I will not be pressing Amendment 122A on the basis of the assurance that we have been given.

On Amendment 124A, which I have degrouped here, there are questions about fees, on which my noble friend Lord Porter and I and others have spoken, that might bear further clarification in discussion. I welcome the assurances that my noble friend has given. I was interested when she said that the fees currently allowed would be adequate to enable the private sector to operate. So with the assurances that she has given, for which I thank her, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 121E withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

128YE: After Clause 184, insert the following new Clause—
“Local planning authority right to develop in the local interest
(1) Where a local planning authority has compiled a register under section 137 or has seen a report under section 184 and considers that a government department, Mayor of London or other public authority, transport undertaking or other statutory undertaking has not prepared, or declines to prepare, a plan for development of previously developed unused or underused land on the register in its possession within the local authority area, it may challenge the owner of the land to present planning proposals to the local planning authority within 6 months in conformity with the adopted plan or plans for the area concerned, unless the Secretary of State has certified such development as against the national interest.(2) Where the owner declines to present such a plan in accordance with subsection (1) it must publish within the same 6-month period a response showing good reason why such previously used land in its ownership should not be developed in the local public interest.(3) If the local planning authority considers the response not to show good reason why the land should not be developed, it may proceed to present its own proposals for development, to compulsorily purchase the land concerned and to exercise itself any planning consent that is then granted.(4) The costs to the local planning authority of any compulsory purchase of the land and the net cost of its development will be remitted by the local planning authority without any profit element to the owner who has declined to develop, in arrears after the land is sold.(5) This section does not apply to land within National Parks or the Royal Parks or designated as a site of special scientific interest.”

[Lord True]

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the tour de force of my noble friend Lord Younger. In 100 years’ time, historians will read Hansard and marvel at his command of the law of compulsory purchase. I can say to those future historians that I am absolutely amazed by what he has told us.

Because of time, I will be very brief. I seem to be unfortunate in addressing noble Lords at this late hour every day. I have tried to put forward a creative idea in response to the intolerable position whereby public authorities fail to develop land when they should. I declare an interest as a non-executive member of the Royal Parks Board. The Royal Parks are referred to in this amendment, but that is technical.

I spoke to this in Committee at a different point in the Bill. I do not want to detain your Lordships long, but the issue is simple. To give one example, which actually would not be addressed but it is the spirit of the thing, a planning permission that has been granted in my borough, over intense opposition, to build 110 homes has not yet been proceeded with by a public authority after five years. Another example would be an official from a health service body who said, when pressed in discussion with my planning officers recently to proceed with a development on a site brief to develop new homes, a small primary school and medical facilities, “Well, if you keep going on like that, we could leave this lying fallow for years”. That is the sort of mentality that exists too often. I congratulate the Government on trying to get to grips in the Bill with brown land that is held by government departments, public bodies and other statutory and transport undertakings. I will not venture to mention Network Rail.

My amendment is defective in many ways. I am not suggesting that it could operate in this way. But I am encouraged to press forward in the hope that, instead of always criticising local authorities, my noble friend on the Front Bench may be able to say that, over the weeks and months to come, he is prepared to consider giving local authorities the opportunity to do something to get these buildings and developments done. At the moment we are taking incoming fire but are not able to press those who are failing in their public duty, in my estimation. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True. It is an excellent idea. I hope the Minister will come back, as the noble Lord suggested, with some suggestions for what could be done in the next few months with local authorities.

When I go to Lewisham Town Hall, I get off at Catford Bridge station and walk past a scruffy bit of land clearly owned by the railway that you could easily get six or seven houses on. It just sits there and irritates me every day. The railways have bits of land near them. On a number of sites in Lewisham you could build some houses. We are in the midst of a housing crisis and there is no good reason that this land just sits there. I hope the Minister will respond favourably to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord True.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I apologise—I had intended to de-group that, so I did not speak to it. I could speak to it in its place.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Amendment 129A, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has added his name, would remove Clause 186 from the Bill. This clause mirrors Section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires the Minister for the Cabinet Office to publish an annual State of the Estate report setting out progress in improving the efficiency of the civil estate.

Local authorities are already subject to a number of efficiency and sustainability requirements, such as producing energy efficiency certificates for their buildings. The new duty draws on these and requires authorities to publish reports to enable local people to hold them to account for the use of their assets. I reassure noble Lords that any additional costs to local authorities will be met by central government. DCLG is currently undertaking a new burdens assessment of Clauses 183 to 187 to determine which of the provisions create new burdens, and their extent.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 129ZA, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, which would remove Clause 185 from the Bill. The power to order disposals was brought into effect through the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The power underpins the community right to reclaim land, which enables people to hold public authorities to account for their use of land. Under this right, communities can drive improvements in their local area by asking the Secretary of State to direct that underused or unused land owned by public bodies is brought back into beneficial use.

Since 1 April 2011, when the National Planning Casework Unit was tasked with considering requests under the right, we have received 106 requests. Only one of these resulted in the power being exercised, over a piece of land of 0.26 hectares in Tiddington, near Stratford-upon-Avon—no doubt a blessed plot. A great deal of effort has been expended by those making requests, and by the casework unit in considering them, for very little gain. This is why the Government wish to strengthen the existing legislation—to enable people to challenge their local authorities to release land, even where it is used, if it could be put to better use. Far from being centralising, Clause 185 gives more power to local communities.

The 1980 Act already provides important safeguards which will continue to apply to the new provisions. Public bodies must be notified of the Secretary of State’s proposal to exercise the power and are given 42 days in which to make representations. If a representation is made, the Secretary of State may not give a direction unless he is satisfied that the disposal can be made without serious detriment to the performance of the body’s functions.

All this shows that we are determined to ensure that public land is used as efficiently as possible, and that where it can be made surplus and put to better use, especially in building more homes, this happens as quickly as possible. These clauses are essential to that agenda, and I hope that noble Lords will be fully reassured by the explanations I have given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am sorry to say that I disagree with the noble Lord on his final point. We are indeed looking at the land that the Government hold at national level very carefully indeed. As the noble Lord will have seen, Table 1.12 in the Autumn Statement catalogues what each department is being expected to provide in land for housing and land surplus to requirements, which we will be looking to dispose of.

[Lord True]

My Lords, obviously, I am slightly disappointed by my noble friend’s reply. I am gratified he recognises the problem and thinks that local authorities might be useful, but he thinks that it is too risky to allow them to do anything. That is the disappointing part of his reply. I want to take the spirit of my noble friend’s answer, rather than the letter. I like to think that further thought will be given to this problem, because it will remain and I will not cease to put the case for local authorities to be able to take the initiative.

I had intended to speak to my other amendment in its place but, as my noble friend has already spoken to it, it will perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I respond now, and then we can move on. My reason for criticising Clause 186 is that, as my noble friend acknowledged, it is potentially a major new burden on local authorities. He did not address that; he said that money would be provided. I question whether it is necessary for money to be provided. One of the achievements of the Government after 2010 was to sweep away the nonsense of a process called asset management strategies and asset management plans, where every local authority was required regularly to submit to the Government what they were doing with their land. This is simply officials in Whitehall reviving that process under another name. It was one of Gordon Brown’s most disliked operations, and local authorities were very glad to see it go.

It is absurd to expect the Cabinet Office to monitor all the bodies in Schedule 22 to check whether authorities are reducing the size of their estate. Ministers in the Cabinet Office are going to check, every time that a local authority changes building, that it is in the top quartile of energy performance. This will be an interference with local authorities’ ability to use their land efficiently. We must explain. Let us say that we wanted to take leasehold space in a building to use our estate more profitably, but it was less energy-efficient. My officers have to file a report with the Cabinet Office explaining why we have taken three rooms in a block of flats to put some officers there briefly.

I will not press the amendment, because I read in the commencement clause that it does not come into force on the day on which the Bill comes into force. For that reason, I will withdraw the amendment, but I urge my noble friend to think about the bureaucracy being recreated here. Section 7 is in any case defective because a building can be part of an authority’s estate where two authorities are working together. An authority may well have a building in a partner authority’s area and may have an interest. Say if Richmond were partnered with Wandsworth and using a building in Wandsworth, according to the amendment as drafted by the Government, that building would not be classed as part of Richmond’s estate. That is absurd, and officials need to look again at the drafting of this legislation.

I am disappointed by seeing this bureaucracy returning, albeit under the guise of climate change, but I hope that before this comes into force my noble friend will give more consideration to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 128YE withdrawn.

Housing and Planning Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 102D. I declare many different property interests, both directly and through companies in which I have registered an interest. They comprise land directly held by me and by companies, and also land held under options in Sussex, London, Oxfordshire and Scotland. Many of these companies are in the process of developing land and some have planning applications outstanding. I am also a trustee of many charities with property interests.

I support Clause 145. It will do an enormous amount of good, even as drafted, but I am aware that some objectors have concerns with it. It seems they are worried that a “designated person'” will not only be able to process the application, but will have the delegated authority to actually make the planning decision. That would be concerning. So it may be worthwhile to explicitly state that it is not the Government’s intention to allow a designated person to decide the outcome of an application. The actual decision should be reserved for the democratically elected councillors, all as part of greater localism.

The Minister may say that this is clear enough from the existing drafting of Clause 145, but if so I would ask why so many different people have misunderstood it. My amendment, which is supported by noble Lords from three different parties, would save time in the long term. If there is confusion among objectors and developers now, they will simply waste time by misunderstanding the existing clause.

I respect the opinions of many noble Lords who would prefer that this whole Bill does not pass, but if it is to pass, they want it to be as clear as possible. I want it to pass, but I also want it to be as clear as possible. I therefore want to amend Clause 145 to make it explicitly clear that a designated person shall not have any power to determine a planning application.

[Lord True]

This is a useful amendment. Perhaps I am tempted to intervene by the rodomontade of my noble friend Lord Deben, who certainly seemed to me an admirable candidate to be a designated person advising on green applications. He would do it better than most, and I look forward to the opportunity that he was extolling.

I also speak as a leader of a blooming local authority which has tried to be creative. I remind my noble friend that my education department is now a social enterprise. I have no problem with privatisation. I do not follow that route at all—my problem with this is that I do not like law made in a hurry. The process here is bad; there is not enough opportunity for consideration.

[Lord Borwick]

Nine days?

[Lord True]

No—if the noble Lord had been here earlier, he would have heard that this came in at a very late stage in the Commons and was dealt with quickly, and this was the first opportunity your Lordships have had to discuss it. All I am saying is that that is inappropriate at this time and place.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is on to a very pertinent point. I am not going to go into all the issues; we have not had long enough to discuss planning fees. Local authorities should be properly funded for performing this important function. Funding other bits of sticking plaster—effectively, in some ways, that is what it is—to do that is not going to answer that core problem of under-resourced statutory function.

My problem with this comes down to the point of decision. At the end of the day, that decision must be independent. We have a court system in this country which is full of privatisation. People are advised by private solicitors. Their cases are pleaded by self-employed barristers. There is nothing wrong with private operators. When we get to the point of decision and recommendation, the planning committee, as noble Lords who have attended or been members of planning committees will know, is like a jury in effect, although it has a quasi-judicial effect. Under this provision, one of the parties—the applicant—will very often be a powerful figure who will, in effect, be summing up for the jury. That is what is in the documents here: it is solely for the designated person to make a recommendation to the local planning authority how, in their professional opinion, the application might be termed. So a piece of paper goes to the planning committee with the word “recommended” on it in bold. Under this provision, the private operator, who has a link with one party, is the person who does that summing up to the jury. To my mind, that is the difficulty. I have no problem with private operators being involved, as long as the poor bloomin’ local authority is allowed to properly function in doing what it seeks to do.

I am sorry if I am now in the third minute of my speech. I know that brevity is the soul of wit although sometimes, as shown in parts of the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, within longiloquence there can also be pearls of wisdom.

I am concerned about this provision. It allows another local authority to be designated to do the job for local authority No. 2. We are told that that is because one of those authorities may be inefficient. Now, any Government can do this, not only my noble friend’s Government but perhaps Mr Jeremy Corbyn’s Government or that of—I cannot remember; was it Mr Farron? The point is that any Government with a policy preference could say to a local authority that was compliant or friendly, or perhaps did not worry too much about the green side or the affordable side, “We will have an experiment. We will give the work of the authority that is being too green or too difficult with developers to another authority that does not worry too much about green issues, and let them do it”. So there is a risk of moral hazard there—political moral hazard, if you like—from the involvement of any Government. If this measure goes forward, that part needs to be thought about.

My next point comes from long experience of trying sometimes to get things done on a bloomin’ local authority in the public interest. Getting development done is difficult, and one of the reasons why is the suspicion among the public of the planning system. We are an incredibly uncorrupt country, with many high-quality public servants in many local authorities and central government. Still, how many times do people come up to me and say, “Oh, there’s something going on in your planning department. The thing is rigged”? They feel that the system is unfair and rigged against them. If we had a system where the powerful, as conceived, were trying to get something done and were advantaged by having someone working for them who could get to the point of giving the summing-up to the jury, that would increase suspicion of the planning system and would not improve it.

I say to my noble friend: I wish this had been thought out a little more. Perhaps this is too swift a timescale to do it on. However, if we are to go forward with involving much more private activity and competition—I am not against the principle of that, unlike those opposite—can we please think about those very vulnerable points in the process? I would not be quite as dramatic as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours; I think, rather, that it might sink or swim. Still, the points that I have tried in my rather halting way to put forward are extremely important.

We also have to be careful about the scope of the secondary legislation. When I look at Clause 145(4), I am surprised that the Delegated Powers Committee did not take issue with the wording:

“The regulations may … apply or disapply … any enactment about planning”.

That seems to be the ultimate Henry VIII power, even in respect of an experiment.

I say to my Front Bench: please be cautious. Do not be put off entirely from looking for experiment, as noble Lords opposite were saying. But please think about that process at the point of decision, the nature of engagement of the Government and of powerful parties and how that might be perceived, and the moral hazard and indeed the actual hazard that might arise.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise primarily to speak to Amendment 102D, to which my name is attached, but I cannot resist commenting on the paean of praise from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for landowners. I could not help thinking that he might have a desire to involve the local planning authority if a large basement were being dug underneath his property or someone was proposing a building that did away with most of the light that fell on his property. I think then he might develop a bit of enthusiasm for planning, as opposed to the rights of landowners.

I accept the right to experiment, but to say that, because we, on this side of the Committee, suggest that there could be some problems with the idea and that we would like to subject it to scrutiny, it somehow means that we are totally Luddite or that we are opposed to any experimentation whatever, is a trifle over the top. I do not know whether my name says that I am young enough to meet that compliance, but I hope that my attitude is, anyway; so on the assumption that this might go through, the purpose of the amendment is to raise a perfectly legitimate and necessary concern. Whoever it is contracted to, the final decision—and legislation should be very explicit on this—must come back to the local authority. It must come back to the elected people to make that decision. That might be infuriating—on many occasions it is. There is a development going on in my area that has taken three years up till now. I would not blame the planners; a group of nimbys are doing their best to ensure that this development does not take place, but that is what you get with local democracy.

It is right to be sure. I looked at the phrase in the Bill that I assume the Government put in as a safeguard. It says:

“The regulations must provide that the option to have a planning application processed by a designated person … does not affect a local planning authority’s responsibility for determining planning applications”.

I can see that that is what this is about. The phrase, “does not affect” ought to be stronger than that; that is why I am supporting this amendment.

Finally, I hope that the Government will ensure—after all the consultation and the pilots—that there is clear government guidance for whoever is to carry out this work. There should be declarations of interest and an ethical responsibility in the way the work is carried out. Those are legitimate concerns, some of which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Beecham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The answer to that is yes.

[Lord True]

The problem that my noble friend might reflect on is that paragraph 463 of the Explanatory Notes states that,

“it will be solely for them”—

that is, the designated person—

“to process the application and make a recommendation to the local planning authority on how, in their professional opinion, the application might be determined”.

In my world of reading planning reports every week, that is what is in the planning recommendation: there is a point of recommendation. That is the difficulty which I would like us to look at between now and Report: whether building on the excellent amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Borwick one could put in further defences. The other difficulty is in Clause 146(2)(g), where, as has been pointed out, circumstances are envisaged in which the designated person’s advice might be binding.

Finally and briefly, once the thing goes before a committee with a recommendation, the planning committee, if it does not agree, has to overturn that advice, which needs to be dispassionate. The suspicion is that it might not be dispassionate in certain circumstances. When the inspector looks at that, he is looking at a planning committee which has overturned professional advice. The dice are therefore rather loaded when this goes to the inspector. I am not opposed to this in principle, but the point about the element of decision needs to be considered further between now and Report.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister did not exactly reply to my question before. The applicant could go to the contractor and say, “You get the business if you recommend yes”. What is to stop that happening?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That might be the view of the Leader of the House, but it is not my view. The House is being unfairly treated. For those watching our proceedings from outside, we should explain that this Bill is being opposed by a large number of Members of this House on the basis that it is a skeleton Bill, which is being driven through Parliament without all the controversial areas being debated. That is why it is important that we have enough time to debate the nine or 10 remaining groups of amendments. What is happening now in this Chamber is that the Government are trying to find a way in which to secure the passage of the Bill this evening. That is what is going on. The public outside should know that it is a scandal.

[Lord True]

I absolve the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because he has been present for most of the Bill, which is not true of all noble Lords who are seeking to intervene on this question. We normally do not finish until 7 pm on a Thursday. As a courtesy to all of us who have spent a long time here, can we proceed to do the business of this House, which is dealing with legislation, instead of faffing about procedure, delaying and trying to force the Bill timetable on? People who were here after midnight last night and people who have worked hard deserve the courtesy of being allowed to complete the job that we started. Let us hear the Chief Whip at 7 pm and get on with it. That is my view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will not give the House a heart attack, but would the noble Lord consider before Report that surplus land in London might also go to boroughs, as well as to the mayor?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be surprised at this, but I support his amendment. If you believe in the concept of a strong mayor—whether a strong Mayor of London or a strong mayor in combined authorities—what is proposed in these amendments is absolutely right. If you believe in a localist agenda, which I understand that the Government purport to do, this is the right approach. This should be how decisions about surplus land should be made.

On the basis of the comments I have made during the course of today’s Committee, it is important that there is the opportunity for people to make places. The people best placed to do that in this instance will be the mayors; the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities. This is an opportunity. If it is the case—and I believe that my interventions in the last hour perhaps helped facilitate the discussions that may have led to an agreement—that the Government are going to accept the principles behind this, then I, for one, will be delighted.

Deregulation Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for bringing this amendment back. I did not have the benefit of attending the meeting that she had with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, but presumably his explanations of why the Government were doing this crazy thing were not sufficiently compelling to persuade the noble Baroness not to bring back the amendment.

The Minister has to answer some very simple questions if he is to persuade anyone that this is a good idea. The first is: what is the problem that the Government are trying to solve? What is wrong with the scheme under the London Local Authorities Act 2007? What is failing in that scheme? What is the evidence that that is not working or that people are being unnecessarily penalised for a first-time offence? It looks as if the Government have brought forward a Deregulation Bill and have decided not to deregulate something in London but to complicate the regulatory process by introducing extra stages, processes and bureaucracy. If I thought I understood anything about what this Government were trying to do, it was that they believed in simplifying red tape and eliminating wasteful form filling and processes. However, the Government’s proposal makes this area more complicated, not less. The Minister needs to explain why that is the case and why this is an additional regulation Bill rather than a Deregulation Bill.

The Minister needs to explain another thing. I thought the Government believed that localism was another important principle, but the London local authorities have come together and developed a scheme which is working well—unless the Minister can produce evidence at this 11th hour of a whole series of problems of which nobody else was aware. However, we now have an example of the heavy-handed bureaucracy of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Minister’s right honourable friend Eric Pickles saying, “I want to put the dead hand of central government authority on to London local authorities”. How does this square with the Government’s policy on localism? I suspect that this measure was dreamt up for reasons of simplicity without anyone looking at the details, and now nobody is prepared to admit that they got it wrong. However, the reality is that it imposes additional regulation, goes against the principle of localism and we will end up with more bureaucracy and problems to solve a problem which does not exist.

[Lord True (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Tope]

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

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

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

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