Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point which in certain circumstances could touch on issues of public accountability, although referred to on another matter. It may well be that he could be satisfied in that Clause 16(3)(d), at the top of page 12, allows a regulation-making power in relation to,
“the role of the relevant authority’s auditor panel or … supervisory body”.
On this issue of a right of audience, or a right to make representations, my noble friend might well be able in discussion to consider including the point which the noble Lord has raised. It is a significant one and he is right to refer to Companies Act procedures. Perhaps it could be clarified whether it is potentially encompassed in that area, which might help some of us on the Committee.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendment 14E would add to the regulation-making powers under Clause 16(1)(b), which relate to the circumstances of an auditor being removed, as the noble Lord said, by a local public body before their term of office expires. It would enable regulations giving local auditors the right to make representations to the authority’s auditor panel or to the auditors’ “recognised supervisory body” in those circumstances. The noble Lord asked what would happen if it was the Audit Commission; as we have already said, that commission will have an interim body between it being abolished in 2015 and when this changes. That will be a responsible transfer, which is the main thing.
We are sympathetic to the intention of this amendment, which is to ensure proper scrutiny of the removal of an auditor. However, as the noble Lord suspected, we consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Subsection (3)(c) already provides a regulation-making power about,
“the steps that may be taken by the local auditor in connection with the local auditor’s removal from that office”.
As set out in our consultation paper on the draft Bill last year, we intend by regulations to enable the auditor to respond to a relevant authority’s notice of intention to remove them, with that response to be considered by the relevant authority’s auditor panel. So the auditor panel now has a role in overseeing that in an independent way.
The auditor panel would then be required to advise the authority on the proposal to remove the auditor. In light of the auditor’s response, we intend that the authority’s final decision to remove the auditor would be subject to that advice. As with appointment, we intend that where a body does not follow the audit panel’s advice it would need to publish the reasons for not doing so. We also intend to require that the recognised supervisory body is notified of a removal. Therefore, we do not consider that it is necessary to include this additional wording in the Bill. We think that there are enough safeguards in it. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
That was a lucky hit.
We have had a long debate on three matters within one Bill. That was most unusual. Usually we have many more and we have managed to spend nearly two hours on these three matters. Noble Lords have raised a number of points and clearly we will come back to all of them. I hope that the noble Lords who spoke today will take part in Committee, because sometimes there is a tendency for people to come and deliver their thoughts but not carry them forward in Committee. I hope as many noble Lords as possible will do that.
I have no doubt that the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, will be in their seats in Committee, and we will pick up many of the remarks and comments that have been made about the detail of what happens with the abolition of the Audit Commission. I did not get a sense of any great exasperation—except perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Christopher—that the Audit Commission was coming to the end of its days. However, I understand that there are questions to be asked about how the process will go forward to ensure that local government has in place a proper system and that the integrity of the process of auditing is maintained.
I have sheaves of answers to questions and I do not want to go through all of them. Because of the time, everybody will want to go. I will deal with just one or two areas. The question was raised about the training and supervision of auditors. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised this point. Recognised supervisory bodies are being put into place and they will lay down the rules and the training that must be implicit in auditors applying to do work for local authorities. We can discuss this further, but we can be sure that there is an understanding that auditors must first understand local government finance, apart from anything else; that seems pretty basic. They will also have to be independent from the authority. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. There should be absolutely clear independence between the audit committee and the auditors. I think we shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord that this is what will happen.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of whether just four companies would bid for this audit. I said in my opening remarks that we expected considerably more than those four. Thirteen fulfilled the pre-qualification when it was put out. With the expectation that local authorities will seek auditors independently, or perhaps come together in a small cohort, there will be a requirement for more local auditors who are smaller companies. They will have to be properly qualified and be able to do their job, and while the suggestion is that for safety’s sake everybody will go for the big four, I hope and believe that there is an opening for others to take part.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the difference between the auditor panel and audit committees. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was also interested in this aspect. The audit committees were clearly the supervisory committees of the councils’ own accounts and finance; they were in-house. The auditor panel will be there to ensure that auditors are selected and chosen properly against proper backgrounds. They will also be there to ensure that the external auditors carry out their role.
It is important to take a step away and have independent members in the majority. These committees do not have to be big. I should think that most authorities would be able to find two or three people who will fulfil the role of being independent and who have some idea of what it is all about. It is not unusual for local authorities to have to find independent members; they do it for standards boards and other things, and many of them have them on their pension fund committees as well. It is not beyond the wit of local authorities to find suitable people to sit on these committees to ensure the integrity of what is being done.
The internal audit is not in the Bill because it deals only with external audit arrangements. The requirements for local authorities to maintain effective internal audit has been included in the accounts regulations since 1974. A point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who is obviously very experienced, and he will recognise that that is the situation. The regulations are made under the Audit Commission Act but we intend that those regulations made under Clause 31 will make similar provision in the future. The requirement for health service bodies to maintain the internal audit is dealt with separately under the National Health Service Acts.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the national fraud investigation and what will happen when the Audit Commission is abolished. A final decision has not been made on where it will be placed but it is extremely important that it carries on the work that it is doing, so we will consider it very carefully. I am sure that we can discuss that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked why the opportunity to broaden the scope of the audit was not taken. We understand that the audit of public funds needs a broader scope than the audit of companies. After consultation we decided that the same scope of the audit provides a good balance between maintaining the high quality of audit and audit fees. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, again with his experience, suggested that auditors will be reluctant to criticise that appointment for fear of not being reappointed. They have statutory duties to consider whether they need to make public interest reports; so they cannot be so biased in favour of the local authority that they do not do that. Local people have a right to appeal and they will have to deal with that as well. I do not think that they will be in a position to be reluctant; it will be part of their duties to ensure that they take those up.
We have dealt with the big four. The noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked how we would prevent mission creep in the National Audit Office’s role and said that it should not undertake studies that are not required. The National Audit Office already does studies on government spending. We expect it to add no more than about six to that, which will include local government on a wider scale rather than individual local authorities.
I shall turn to the other two areas on which we received some comments. On levying by external authorities, there are examples where those levies are a very substantial part of the council tax bill. Often, very little consideration is given by those bodies to what those levels are. It is important that they are taken account of.
On the question of retrospection and whether anything this year will be taken into account for next year, no decision has been taken at all about referendums yet. The principles for 2014 will be set out by the Secretary of State later on when he has taken into account all relevant factors, including the position of levies, in due course.
The issue of the principles that might trigger council referendums has long since passed; it was dealt with in previous legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about levies and city deals, particularly with Manchester. Again, the Secretary of State can take account of this when he is looking at the principles that might trigger a referendum, but we intend that local people should have a say before any excessive bills are imposed upon them—in other words, with a referendum.
On publicity, there have been a number of triggers. One of them is that there has been pressure on the local press from local authority newspapers; the other is that some of them have been overtly political. There are examples of where local government publications are still within the political area, and also where they are being issued so often that they are becoming a pressure on the local press. We all agree that the local press is a very important part of being able to inform local people of what is going on, and what the councils are doing. It is worth pointing out that taking action about these papers was not only in the coalition agreement but was a pledge in the general manifestos of both the coalition partners. There is a publicity code already, as noble Lords know, and it will just be a question of giving the Secretary of State powers of direction where he thinks there is an overenthusiasm on the part of local authorities undertaking these publications.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described the direction requiring compliance with the code as being nebulous. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to discuss that further in due course.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about statutory notices. We are aware of the burden that placing statutory notices in newspapers has on local authorities. The Secretary of State has stated that,
“in the internet age … commercial newspapers should expect that over time there will be less state advertising”.—[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/3/11; col. 18.]
That would imply that they can be carried out in other ways.
I know we are going to come back to many of these points. Noble Lords must forgive me if I have not specifically picked up any of the points that they have made. If they think that it would be helpful to have a reply before we go into Committee where I have not answered them I will make sure that happens. Otherwise, I look forward—
Lord True
Before my noble friend sits down, she has not responded—I understand why and I do not complain about it—to the gravamen of my speech, which related to the ability of certain local bodies, in this case, an NHS body, to evade accountability and proper response to a report from an auditor. Will she undertake to hold discussions about that before Committee?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I certainly will. I apologise to my noble friend. It would perhaps be better if we discussed that before we take it on. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked me whether we could discuss the audit for small authorities. Of course, I am delighted to do that as well; we will make arrangements for that, once we have all had a good Recess and time to put these things behind us for a day or two.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are running slightly out of order so, with the leave of the House, I will speak now and the noble Lord can respond after me.
I am glad that most noble Lords have had an opportunity to see the consultation. I made it clear in Committee that I would try to ensure that the consultation responses, at least, were available to the House, and that is what we have done. It would be fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has done, that with any consultation parts are agreed and parts disagreed. If I did not misunderstand my noble friend Lord True, he suggested that we might dismiss anything that had come in from a local authority. I can assure him categorically that that is not the situation.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise for missing the fact that this was an aside. I will not take it any further, other than to underline the point that we listen very carefully to what local authorities say about legislation and we always will.
I am also grateful for the general support we have had. I understand that there are still concerns about this designation but we are trying to keep it as simple as we possibly can. In that regard, I will briefly address the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. We will be discussing the criteria in Amendment 10. They may want to intervene again in the next group but I think and hope I can deal with it. It is important to remember the whole purpose of this clause, which is to encourage good and timely decisions from local authorities and to give applicants for major development the choice of a much better service. There is no question here that, where the authority is designated, an applicant cannot still go to them. They are given the choice of being able to go to a local authority or being able to go immediately to the planning inspector. At the moment, they can do that after 13 weeks if an application has not been dealt with, but now they can go right from the outset.
In the context of design, sustainability is hugely important. However, it is not relevant to what we are trying to do here, which is to get the number of appeals against a particular local authority down and the applications dealt with quickly. Local authorities have to take sustainability, design and good development into account. The noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out very clearly what my honourable friend at the other end, Nick Boles, has said. We believe very strongly in that. The national policy framework deals with that as well and makes it very clear. However, these are not tests that we ought to apply as part of assessing the designation. They are not matters that can easily be assessed on the basis of our considerations and the very limited criteria which we are employing.
Were the amendment to be accepted, there would be a very real risk of having a process that is far from transparent. We do not want that: we want it to be as open as it can be and, perhaps, open to judicial review. We wish to avoid that by employing the criteria that will ensure that the assessment process is as fair and transparent as possible. As I say, we will have a chance to consider those further in the next group.
My noble friend Lord True—I actually understood him this time and did not get it wrong—asked whether there would be clarity where the applications were sent to the Secretary of State. Again, we will deal with this later in the Bill where there are relevant amendments, but I assure him that the intention is that it should be open and transparent, with local people having the right to make representations to planning officials. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Local Government: Provisional Finance Settlement
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, he has been asked to do it and I suspect I can provide the noble Lord with the date the inquiry is to start.
Lord True
My Lords, as no one else has, can I thank my noble friend for the transfer of the business rate to local authorities? We debated the matter in this House and many of us feel that it needs to go further. This is however a very important reform for which I thank the Minister. Will she restrain her right honourable friend in some of his remarks about reserves? For many of us reserves are the schools of the future and this issue needs to be looked at carefully. As one who joined local government when no allowances were paid, I would ask whether there will be legislation on this announcement about pensions for councillors, many of whom surrender work—sometimes all work—in order to fulfil a public function. Will that legislation cover other forms of elected representative?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. He will know that we discussed in the Local Government Finance Bill that, as the economy improves, we hope to extend the percentage of revenue that can be maintained by local authorities as a result of the business rate retention scheme. We have touched on reserves already and I accept, as does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that reserves in moderation are an important aspect of local government. Where reserves are allocated against particular projects, that is acceptable, but there are a number of local authorities sitting on very substantial sums of money which they could use to support their revenue responsibilities without having to say they do not have any money. Local government pensions were dealt with in a Written Ministerial Statement that came out a couple of days ago. I suspect it will need secondary legislation but I need to confirm that.
Motion to Adjourn
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham
Lord True
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for what she said and for the change that has been made. I declare an interest as leader of a planning authority. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said—that it would be desirable, in principle, if changes could be made more regularly, rather than in a stepped arrangement. I think I heard my noble friend say, and I find in the papers, that she recognises the need to go back and examine, at some point, the case for decentralisation. I very much welcome that. In the nature of things the balance of planning applications, the nature of business between one authority and another, will be different. Some will have very large numbers of large construction projects, others will rely mainly on householder projects; but given that the principle that the Government sets down, that it should be possible to recover costs, is accepted, I hope that, over time, we can also move towards decentralisation. I am sure that local authorities would welcome that and work with it.
I note that it is said that there is a need for restraint; that councils should not respond to current reductions in central government grant funding simply by increasing fees to raise lost grant revenue. That is a nice obeisance to Treasury doctrine, but of course the principle is that within the planning framework, planning costs should be met by planning fees, plus whatever grant is available. I hope that that principle is accepted. We are obviously not allowed to charge a commercial rate for part of a function, whereas everybody else who is involved in a planning process is. That is by their nature, whether it is the lawyers indulging in some judicial review or the builders charging a commercial rate, so councils in time should be allowed to do so. With that rider, I welcome the commitment to look again at decentralisation. I thank very much my noble friend for her announcement and give it my warm support.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that makes a change from the previous debate, for which I may be extremely thankful. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his support for these measures, although I appreciate that there was some qualification from both the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord True because of the fact that the 15% does not totally meet the inflation rise. The noble Lord asked what measure of inflation it is. It is CPI. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord True also asked about passing the planning fee question to local authorities. There has not been a decision on that at the moment. It was part of the consultation, as I said, and it has not been thrown out. In answer to the question from my noble friend, work is continuing with the Local Government Association to look at that and at reviewing fees more regularly.
Another question which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked was on Article 4 directions and HMOs. I have three pages here—the noble Lord may not want all of that but I am happy to send them to him. The changes made in October 2010 mean that a change in use of a family dwelling to a small HMO is permitted development. Where there are local concerns about concentrations of HMOs, on the other side, authorities can make Article 4 directions to restrict the national permissions after consultation with the local community. We do not believe that councils with substantial HMO problems have been slow in applying for Article 4 directions as a consequence of not being able to charge a planning application fee to determine them. I think that covers the question that the noble Lord asked. He is looking as if the answer is sort of yes. If there is anything further on that, I will of course let him know.
The question of capacity is something that varies from local authority to local authority. I think what was meant by capacity is the number of planning officers available to deal with applications. To some extent, that will be governed by the amount of work that local authorities have. In somewhere like London, there may need to be more than there are. The gap in a local authority’s budget, if there still is one, will have to be borne by that local authority, certainly for the time being, but we do not expect those gaps to be very large. I think that that answers some of the noble Lord’s questions. There were only five on these regulations instead of the 40 on the previous matter. I am very nervous about the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, because he normally produces whole strings of questions which are usually quite difficult to get a grip on, but I think I have answered him today. I am grateful for the responses from the noble Lord and from my noble friend Lord True.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham
Lord True
The noble Baroness presents another possible wrong to defend the particular wrong that I am addressing.
I am sorry that I was slow coming into the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, started his speech; I heard it on the monitor and I agreed with many of the things he said about the timing of this announcement, which is also implicit in what the noble Baroness has said. But I return to the fundamental point that if your Lordships pass this amendment, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea can ask the Treasury to go on funding the scheme as it now is. The noble Baroness thought it was absurd that those leafy boroughs should be funded, and I rather agree.
The other thing one has to accept is that surely there is somewhere between no saving from council tax benefit, which is the potential position if this amendment were passed and every local authority put that upon the Treasury, and the extent of saving, the problems of which we have heard described; there must be some amount that can be saved under this heading, because I believe—I do not have the figures before me—that spending on council tax benefit doubled during the Administration of the party opposite. I do not accept that there cannot be reductions. Therefore, because of the technical flaw in the second part of the amendment and because I think that there is scope for making reductions, I cannot support the amendment if it is put to a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank everybody for their contributions and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for the way in which he moved the amendment, which was rather through gritted teeth.
We listened carefully in Committee to what was said about the implementation of this council tax scheme. During the Recess—noble Lords will recall that we have been back in this House for only one week—we looked at whether there was any amelioration that we could offer to local authorities to help them through the first year of the new scheme. That arose from discussions in this House, so, rather than being traduced for that, perhaps people would recognise that we have taken some notice and are setting about trying to help. I grant that the transitional scheme is for one year, but, during that one year, we would expect local authorities to have a much better idea of how they might “smooth in” the scheme.
We were also told that many local authorities were looking to charge people who have 100% benefit at the moment anything up to 30%. Noble Lords have spoken about the difficulty involved in collecting sums of money, but that is just an absurd way of looking at this scheme. We have therefore limited the amount that can be charged to people who are on 100% benefit to 8.5% and effectively enabled local authorities to do that by helping them with a grant along the way.
Local authorities do not have to collect 8.5%; they do not have to charge it. They can accept that it will cost more to collect it than to say, “We will let that go for this year while we look further into our schemes for the future”. That is quite correct. As has already been said, some local authorities will not implement that aspect that all.
However, it is pretty rich of noble Lords opposite to suggest that this is somehow an absolutely dreadful imposition. We are giving money to local authorities to help them through a first year which we have recognised may not be very easy to handle. Rather than noble Lords opposite gasping and continuing to tell us that this is just awful, perhaps they might have given us a little bit of credit for listening and trying to help.
The deficit is serious. The increase in council tax benefit during the past 10 years has been enormous, being, as my noble friend Lord True said, well over 100%. That is just ridiculous. We cannot go on like that and we have to make some room for bringing that down. There are a number of ways of doing it, as noble Lords have pointed out.
I have given the House a Written Statement. I have given the broad outlines of how the scheme will operate. It is not very difficult. It is being made very easy for local authorities to fulfil the criteria and to claim the money. I have already said that we will give fuller details on the amount of money that local authorities are likely to be able to retrieve. I hope to do that this week or, if not, at the beginning of next week.
I do not accept that all the grumbles here are justified. I do accept that local authorities are having quite a difficult time. I also accept that the country is having a more-than-difficult time with its finances and the economy. That is why, as my noble friend Lord True said, everybody, sadly, is having to play a part. I just add that to what has been said. I am sure that this will come in again in other amendments that are on the way. This is not an amendment to the Bill but a transitional relief to the council tax scheme.
Those councils which have already consulted on the scheme or are consulting at the moment will need to decide, when they see about this grant, whether they wish to reconsult. It is very unlikely that that will be necessary because they will have a scheme that is slightly better than the one they were looking at, but it is up to them. If they want to do that, they need to take legal advice on whether the changes to their scheme justify them consulting again in any way, even on part of the scheme. That is up to them. We are giving them a helping hand. We hope that that will at least ameliorate for some of them the concerns expressed here today. As I said, I gave the Written Ministerial Statement at a time when I could really do nothing much about the change because there was not the ability to lay it. This has not been going on for months; we have not been considering it for months. We have considered it ever since we were in Committee in this House.
Amendment 98A would make it explicit that billing authorities can run a local scheme along the same lines as the existing council tax benefit scheme. It is not necessary for this amendment to do that or to put it in the Bill. If a local authority wants to have the default scheme, it may base its local scheme on that, retaining the criteria and allowance of the council tax benefit regime. Of course, it will do that against the background of the 10% reduction, so nobody will make up that 10% if they do that. The amendment would also require central government to continue funding council tax support schemes to the same levels as the existing council tax benefit scheme. As I said, that would be minus the 10% and would not be funded to the full amount.
The reforms we are making provide a vital contribution to our deficit reduction. To requote the figures, council tax benefit expenditure in England increased from £2 billion in 1997-98 to £4.3 billion in 2010-11. It might be interesting for noble Lords to hear and take note of the fact that in 2010-11, we spent more on welfare than on education, defence and health combined. Our reforms give councils stronger incentives to support local firms, promote local enterprise, cut fraud—there is plenty of that within the system—and get people back into work. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, that when people start working they can progress if they wish and are able to. On the noble Lord’s question, I slightly challenge what he said about inflation. My understanding is that inflation fell to 2.29%. I think the noble Lord said that it was 11%. Our reforms give councils stronger incentives to promote local enterprise and help people into work. We are moving on that basis.
From now on, local authorities will have real control over how they design their council tax support scheme for people of working age, enabling them to offer council tax reductions that match local circumstances and funding. This amendment potentially removes any saving and as such would constitute a spending commitment. I am not sure whether noble Lords opposite have cleared that with their Front Bench in the other place. If so, it might be helpful to know that. Local authorities already have choices and levers to design and manage their schemes, making their essential contribution to this deficit reduction.
As I think noble Lords will understand from that, I cannot accept the amendment, though I have listened to the concerns raised—as I did in the past. One reason that we have a transitional scheme today is that we as a Government have listened.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked how we were going to manage the handling of the transitional scheme. The answer, as I understand it, is that given by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. There are very precise ways to come back at Third Reading. I do not think that bringing this issue back at Third Reading would constitute one of them. Noble Lords must take that into consideration. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, briefly, I support what has been said by my noble friends. I understand why my noble friend and her colleagues in the Treasury have put forward this proposal but, without repeating points that I made at Second Reading, the acceptance by many authorities of the transfer from one system to another is an acquired acceptance of accumulated unfairnesses—as some would call them—of all varieties. I hope that my noble friend will consider favourably some of the points that have been made by my noble friends, such as this factor and the kind of turbulence and uncertainty that the noble Earl has just been referring to—and I gave the example of the extraordinary movement in our business rate revenue of about 11% between the last two years—the fact that, in the future, we cannot foresee it and that we are going way beyond the public spending survey period.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was here, I would tell him that I am grateful for his amendment and the explanations that have been given on his behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
It might help noble Lords if I remind the Committee—if it needs reminding—how the rate retention scheme will deal with the spending needs of local authorities and how it will handle the changes in rates income that authorities will experience at a revaluation. When the scheme is first set up in 2013-14, we will determine whether authorities have to pay a tariff or whether they receive a top-up payment. To do this, we will compare the local share of the business rates that an authority collects with what I shall simply call the baseline funding level, which is essentially the number that currently falls out of the formula grant process. In other words, it is the share of money that the Government believe each authority should have, taking account of its needs and resources—a calculation that is done currently.
Therefore, at the point that we set up the rate retention scheme, we will have fully taken account of the needs in the same way as we do now under formula grant. Thereafter, we do not intend that the rate retention scheme will take account of needs again until the system is reset, and we have already indicated—and noble Lords have said they understand this—that our aspiration is to have the first reset in 2020 and to have resets only every 10 years thereafter; so 2020 would be eight years after the introduction of the scheme. This is to ensure that there is a sufficiently long time between resets to incentivise growth. If, instead, we were to adjust tariffs and top-ups every year, or every few years, to reflect changing needs, we would completely destroy the incentive effect that this scheme is designed to achieve.
As noble Lords will recognise, if authorities are to be encouraged to invest in growth, they need to be certain about the reward that they will get. As has already been pointed out, authorities will often incur costs as a result of growth and, just as often, those costs are incurred before the rewards from increased rates materialise. If the rate retention system were to be set up in a way that risked authorities incurring costs but then not seeing rewards because tariffs and top-ups had been adjusted, they would have no incentive to invest in growth.
How long the system needs to be stable for is a matter of judgment. Amendment 36 of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would effectively require a reset for needs every five years to coincide with a revaluation. The Government believe that this period is too short. The timeframe over which investment is made and over which costs and rewards materialise will very often be longer than this, a point that was made by many of those responding to last summer’s consultation on the scheme. This is why after 2020 we intend to reset the scheme every 10 years. However, as I indicated last time, we will always retain the ability exceptionally to reset earlier if, for example, we found that the needs and resources had got significantly out of line.
Baroness Hanham
Don’t get too excited. The amendment for which I have more sympathy, Amendment 42, seeks to ensure that there is a period during which authorities can challenge the calculation of the levy payment, but I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in regulations. The basis of the calculations is, as I have explained, to be set out in regulations and local authorities will have ample opportunity to comment on that. Individual calculations will be based on the information supplied to local authorities, so there should be no reason for the calculations to be wrong.
However, I appreciate that local authorities have concerns, as this is something that we have discussed in the working groups that we have with them. Although I am not convinced that a requirement in the Bill is appropriate or necessary, I shall take this away to give further consideration to how we might meet those concerns. That is my sympathetic bit.
Turning to the discussion on the safety net threshold, prompted by Amendments 43, 45 and 45A, noble Lords will be well aware that decisions about the levels of the safety net threshold and the levy ratio are very closely linked. They must balance a range of competing issues and they cannot be divorced. While the safety net needs to offer protection against significant shocks in the local rates base, as I mentioned earlier, it will be funded by other local authorities through the levy. Therefore, the levy ratio must be set at such a level as to generate sufficient income to fund demands on the safety net at the chosen support threshold. Equally, that level must be such that it continues to offer an incentive to authorities to pursue growth.
We have carefully considered all these issues and believe that the levy ratio at 1:1, together with the safety net support threshold in the range of 7.5% to 10% below baseline funding, offers the best combination on balance. We will be consulting local government over the summer before any final decisions are taken. Therefore, although I appreciate the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendments, I am not in a position to accept them.
I think that Amendment 44 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is unnecessary. I understand his aim but he will no doubt appreciate that we will of course want to keep the operation of the safety net under constant review, particularly during the early years of the scheme. If we believe that it is not offering the right level of support, we will change it.
Finally, with Amendment 46 my noble friend Lord Jenkin seeks to ensure that provision is made for the effect of appeals on an authority’s income—a matter raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. We recognise that the impact of rating appeals on an authority’s income is outside the control of the authority but we do not believe that this amendment is the way to deal with it. Instead, as I have previously explained, we will be building two significant protections into the scheme. First, we will be reflecting appeal losses in the initial calculation of tariffs and top-ups. In other words, we will set the level of tariff or top-up as though authorities have collected less income from rates than is the case, recognising that over time they will lose some income on appeal. Generally, we have put in place the safety net so that, where authorities lose more on appeal than is allowed for in the initial calculation, they will be substantially protected through the safety net payments.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I think I understood what my noble friend said and I am grateful for her generally positive response. However, I think I heard her say that the high-income authorities will pay for the funding of the safety net. Of course, I do not know how a high- income authority is defined. If it is a tariff authority—and my authority expects to be a tariff authority—I have just given an example: one appeal has had the effect of knocking 4% off the overall business income. I do not expect the Minister to answer this point now but I hope that there is not an assumption that every tariff authority is necessarily able to bear that sort of short-term turbulence. I should just like to put that point on the record.
Baroness Hanham
Within that, the authorities that will pay the levy are those described as having a disproportionate increase. That is an authority that may have the ability to raise an enormous amount of new money. If the tariff is there and an income is not coming in or is dropping, you cannot be described as having a disproportionate income.
Lord True
I am grateful for that, but that is probably something better dealt with in correspondence. Is anyone from Westminster here? In short-term parlance, we all understand that Westminster is the kind of authority thought of as being disproportionate, with due respect to my friends in Westminster. Could officials let us know about that disproportionate definition tariff? Obviously, if the authority that has to finance the safety net should also be one of those gaining from it, we are in a slightly odd situation as I read it.
Baroness Hanham
I will write to the noble Lord. My understanding is that as long as you have sufficient income left as a tariff authority, you probably would not justify help from the safety net. It is for those who lose an enormous amount of income and are not able to cope with that because it is below the base line. None the less, I shall have the noble Lord written to about that.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(12 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was extremely successful in secret with that one Government with whom he had a good relationship once upon a time.
I do not wish to detain the Committee. I would simply say that surely the problem with a system like this one is that you will then have emulous enthusiasm, so that if the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, makes representations and they are going to be published in a report before Parliament, someone will come to me or to my noble friend Lady Eaton and say, “Why has your authority not made representations?”. So we will have lots of local authorities asking directors of finance to put in their representations so that they can be published and ticked off in a report to Parliament. I do not think that we should bureaucratise this too much until it seems, with experience, that the Government are suddenly not prepared to hear representations on the system. Then we can look at it. However, I think that there is a risk of overbureaucratising this and that it could be a make-work rather than provide a solution. I appreciate the intent with which it is offered but I hope that my noble friend will stick to the position she set out.
Baroness Hanham
Yes, I will. We feel that this would be overly bureaucratic. As I laid out in my response, this can happen. If somebody has a reason or a need for a reset, or they think that they have, they can make representations. I do not think that that requires legislation. I do not intend, unless I am pushed at another stage, to accept that it is necessary at all, as such provision already exists. There is already a process by which that can happen.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have a lot of sympathy with the spirit behind this amendment, but having wearied the House with my views on neighbourhood forums and not having been able to persuade my Front Bench fully about this question, I think that noble Lords opposite will know that my view is that we should start from the assumption that the neighbourhood forum includes everybody in the neighbourhood area. In those circumstances, if the neighbourhood forum is very large, I do not think that the kind of amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has proposed would be practicable. I do not think that we could ask everybody who lives in a village or in a neighbourhood area to publish their interests simply because they wanted to participate in a neighbourhood forum.
If, however, it emerges—and I think we have to wait and see the guidance on the Bill—that my maximalist view of what a neighbourhood forum should be does not prove to be the case, and if the neighbourhood forums turn out to be rather small bodies of perhaps only 21 individuals wielding a great deal of influence in the name of the community, then I would find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite persuasive. As we gain experience going forward of what these bodies are actually going to be—whether they are small or big—this will affect the judgment that I would make about this question. I would suggest, however, that this is something that we might leave until we see further guidance on the Bill. I am sure it would be a matter that might be addressed then. If 21 people are going to be very influential in an area, I would like to know where they were coming from, and I am sure local people would, too.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, Amendment 14 would require local authorities to maintain a register of the interests of members of designated neighbourhood forums. From the outset, I remind Members and my noble friend behind me that 21 is a minimum. You can have as many as you like on a forum—if he wants the whole bloomin’ neighbourhood, he can have the whole lot on it. There is nothing to stop that happening. I would take his view that if you are going to have most of the members of a ward or an area, which might amount to 1,500 or so, this proposal would probably be otiose.
A neighbourhood forum is designated by a local authority for the express purpose of preparing a neighbourhood plan or order for a designated neighbourhood area. The neighbourhood forum will not make decisions on planning applications or on whether a neighbourhood plan or order should come into force, nor will it take on wider duties and responsibilities. Neither is the neighbourhood forum intended to form an equivalent governance function to that of a parish council. The neighbourhood forum is simply a group designated by the local authority to prepare a neighbourhood plan or order.
We have worked hard to ensure that the Bill reflects this position by imposing minimum requirements that community groups must meet in order that they can be designated as a neighbourhood forum. This will enable existing groups to take a leading role in neighbourhood planning. To avoid forums acting inappropriately, the Bill gives local authorities the power to remove the designations of neighbourhood forums in certain circumstances. In addition, requiring their members to register and declare interests would be unnecessary. Since the forum is similar to a planning applicant submitting a planning application to the local authority, it is not making a decision in the public interest.
Furthermore, in practical terms, maintaining a register of the interests of neighbourhood forum members would be extremely difficult for the authority to achieve, given the wide range of individuals who could be members of a neighbourhood forum and the likelihood of frequent change in the forum’s overall membership throughout the process of preparing the plan or order. The Bill requires all neighbourhood forums to include, as I said, at least 21 members who live or work in or are elected members of the neighbourhood area and to have an open approach to their membership.
In addition, of course, there was the requirement that we put into the Bill—I think at Report stage—that there should be consultation before any plan is put to the local authority. I hope that Members will accept this view and not push this amendment today.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
My Lords, I wish to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Best, as he referred to me. It follows from my arguments on my own amendment that I think there are many cases where a referendum is not necessary. Indeed, my amendment suggested that local authorities should be able to proceed without the need for referendums. Therefore, I was interested to hear about the discussions that the noble Lord mentioned. As he knows, I am not axiomatically against all referendums. There is a place for a referendum in some circumstances to empower those who are disempowered or, indeed, to resolve a genuine heated dispute in a community.
However, for the reasons the noble Lord implied, I could not support Amendment 207 because it would give too much potential power to an individual councillor. This may not be the case only as regards councillors from a minority party. In my authority five out of 18 wards are split wards with minority representation. Frankly, there are wards where everybody is nominally of the same party but they cannot stand each other, although that does not apply in my authority, of course. Therefore, there is scope for a lot of potential mischief. The threat of provoking a referendum, which would cost money unless someone does something for someone else behind closed doors, is probably better avoided. In other respects I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment. In the context of the discussions, I encourage the noble Lord to follow the direction in which he has begun to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we have returned somewhat to the discussion that we had on Amendment 205 at the beginning of the evening. I am happy that noble Lords still remember what was said on that amendment. At the outset I confirm what I said when responding to Amendment 205. Where there is agreement on the neighbourhood plan between the neighbourhood forum and the local council under the local development plan, a referendum does not have to take place. As long as they are all in agreement and are all working to the same end, the local authority can accept that the neighbourhood plan conforms with the local development plan and therefore does not require a referendum.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before we go any further it may be in the interests of the House if I indicate probably what is now the worst kept secret—that the Government will be minded to accept these amendments, and there may be further debate.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not wish to inject a note of dissent entirely, because noble Lords who were in Committee will know that I was one of those who was extremely critical of many of the prescriptive aspects of what was laid out in the Bill. Indeed I have laid amendments with my noble friend Lord Howard to raise the question of whether referendums might be binding in certain circumstances.
I do not fear the use of referendums; they will be possible, and I hope that in endorsing the decision of the Government, the message will not go out from the House that somehow referendums are in all circumstances undesirable or unwanted. I know that that is not the Government’s intention otherwise they would not have presented us with the Bill in the first place, but in the general maelstrom of enthusiasm that I am sure will follow this announcement, it is important for someone to place it on the record that in terms of localism and popular voice, a referendum can be a powerful and legitimate weapon of public power and authority.
One of the problems with what was drafted by the Government was not only its prescriptiveness but of course the ease with which it could be used, which led to all the problems of cost and potential abuse, and that is where we got into a number of difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, withdrew an amendment which was effectively going to restrict the ability of one or two councillors to interfere or manipulate the process of these referendums.
Since we are going to discuss this matter late here tomorrow in relation to neighbourhood orders, Amendment 207, which gives the power to individual ward members to exercise a stopping power, is not desirable. That reason why the Government’s referendum provisions are not desirable is a good reason why I support the Government’s action in withdrawing this. It is important to state that, from my perspective as the leader of a local authority, a referendum is a weapon that can and should be used and should be accepted by those in local government.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham
Lord True
Will my noble friend also very kindly undertake to respond to my point on Amendment 153ZD where neither the local community nor the council wish to have the existing policy imposed by an external authority? I should like a reply on that point but it can be a written reply and I shall be very grateful for it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I shall certainly do that. With those replies, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to set out a definition of an asset of community value in regulations that will require local authorities to judge whether an asset meets that definition in particular local circumstances. It seems right that there should be some pretty clear idea of what we are talking about and what is justified.
If the local authority decides that an asset meets the definition and it was proposed by a community nomination, it is required to list. There is a “must”; it must do that, if it fulfils the ambition of the legislation. I hear what my noble friend says about leaving it to the local authority to decide what is a community asset and what is not, in its terms, but if we get it right in regulations, there should be no doubt as to what it can list and what it cannot. To leave it without the definition in the Bill would create much more room for uncertainty for both the community groups and property owners and reduce the transparency of the process.
Amendment 138 would amend subsequent wording in line with the change proposed by Amendment 137. We do not accept the amendments that my noble friend has proposed, because we think that on this matter the local authority needs to have pretty well defined parameters.
Lord True
I understand the point made by my noble friend the Minister, but I have some sympathy with the amendment, for reasons that she will understand from my previous interventions. I do not think that this is easy, and I look forward with interest, as many other noble Lords in this Committee will, to seeing the regulations and the guidance that her department will produce. The Minister was very receptive to that point when it was made by noble Lords two days ago and today. There are circumstances in which a local authority, using its reasonable discretion, could cut short a bureaucratic process that is pre-eminently likely to end in the rejection of a nomination. I really do not see why, taking its local circumstances into account, a local authority should not be given slightly greater freedom than is presently suggested in the Bill. I understand my noble friend’s argument and that of my noble friend Lord Howard, but in many ways I slightly move towards my noble friend Lord Howard’s because I hope that some degree of latitude and discretion will be allowed.
Lord True
I agree with the noble Lord’s point on transparency. My point is simply that, given the potential legal implications here, the process would have to be transparent in the way that a licensing process ultimately is. It would therefore be a matter of public record, properly minuted and so forth, so that setting up a separate process by legislation seems otiose.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, five of these amendments look to remove the requirements on the local authority to give reasons for its decisions in connection with the scheme, whether in favour or against. On those five amendments, Clause 77 provides that where a community nomination is unsuccessful the local authority must enter the land on the unsuccessful nominations list and give the nominator written reasons for the decision. Amendment 139 would remove that requirement of giving reasons to the nominator.
Clause 78 deals with notices about the lists. Amendment 140 would remove the requirement for the local authority to give reasons in its notice for removal of land from the list of assets of community value. Amendment 141 to Clause 79, which gives a landowner a right to review of the decision to list, would mean that the local authority would not have to give the owner the reasons for the decision it has taken following the review.
Amendment 141A also concerns the right to review in Clause 79. At present, if the local authority decides on a review to remove the land from the list of assets of community value, it must give a written copy of the reasons for the review decision to the person or body whose community nomination had previously been accepted. Amendment 141A would remove this requirement. Clause 80 concerns a list of unsuccessful nominations. Amendment 142 would remove from this clause the requirement for the local authority to include in the entry the reasons for not putting the land on the list of assets of community value.
These amendments would all remove an essential guarantee of transparency from the scheme. We of course expect local authorities to behave reasonably and tell a community organisation why its nomination was refused, or why an asset had been removed from the list. We would also expect them to tell an owner who had asked for a review of the decision on listing the reason for the decision. These are basic provisions that we consider essential for all community groups and landowners to be able to expect in every case if these measures are to be effective in giving communities real power. That is why we think it is important that these requirements are set out clearly in the Bill, and stay there.
Amendment 141B concerns what should be included in the procedural regulations for the review of listing. This also relates to Clause 79. At present, the Bill sets out matters which the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may include in these procedural regulations. The amendment would mean that these matters must be included in the regulations. This appears to take a contradictory approach to that taken in the previous amendments, as there is a request for prescription of the process but no intention to tell the owner or the nominator of the outcome. In every case it is the Government’s intention to make procedural regulations and to ensure that they contain those details that are necessary for the effective operation of the scheme.
Finally, Amendment 140A appears to be seeking to amend Clause 79, so that where an owner requests a review of the decision to list, the time limit, if any, set for the owner to make this request is not as provided in regulations. We believe that this would be unhelpful to owners of listed land as it would create uncertainty as to how quickly they should act, and would again reduce the level of transparency. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for raising this matter. I referred to it in earlier remarks and I will not repeat what I said, but it would be extremely helpful for the Committee to see this, given the far-reaching potential range of the regulations—who is to pay, who is to be entitled, what it should be in respect of, the amount, the procedure, appeals and so on. That is not only from the point of view of the potential effect on landowners but, as I argued earlier, from that of local authorities. I would not expect my noble friend to answer this now.
I have now found the financial memorandum to the Bill—it is indeed £21 million which is suggested as the total cost to local authorities—where we are told that funding for these new burdens will be provided through the Secretary of State. I wonder whether that is the case. When the regulations are produced, I wonder whether my noble friend could give some estimate of what she thinks the total cost of compensation levied on local authorities might be, assuming that it is levied on local authorities. From the financial memorandum, it may be that the Secretary of State is going to produce the money. That is not clear to me but perhaps those things could be clarified when the note for which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has asked is laid before the House.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the question of regulations is not going to be in my hands. I will make sure that the request that they should be available is passed on but it is not up to me, I am afraid, to make sure that they are. I assure noble Lords that we recognise the importance of offering compensation and have said that in the consultation document.
Through the consultation we sought views on the detail of the scheme—for instance, who should be entitled to compensation, what costs could be compensated and how claims should be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about those matters. We are therefore sympathetic to the spirit of Amendment 147DB, but believe that it is unnecessary as we have already indicated our commitment to establishing a compensation scheme and will be making regulations to do so. I will try to ensure that we at least have sight of those.
Amendment 147EA is also not necessary because we are proposing a government amendment to add to Clause 85 the power to give a right of appeal. That would be done through regulations. This will be an additional power to give landowners the right to request an internal review by the local authority of its decision on compensation.
We consider that the proposed introduction of an external right of appeal will be more suitable than the proposal in Amendment 147EA to have the appeal referred to the district auditor, by which we presume is meant an independent auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. Their role is to check the financial—
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
I think that I replied earlier because I had not realised that other people were going to take part in this. I hear what is being said by my noble friends Lord True, Lord Howard, Lord Jenkin and now Lord Wade. When we look at the measures in the Bill, I think that most of them will turn out to be liberating for local government. It gives them a general power of competence and greater flexibility in what they can do. On some of the areas that we are legislating about now, we think that it is appropriate that there should be some regulations about how things should be done.
I worry a bit about my noble friend Lord True’s amendment. It asks the Secretary of State to prescribe a route along which the noble Lord and others have been telling us that we should not be going on any other matter, so it does not quite follow. I think that we have discussed across the Chamber before that there are not always good relations between the three tiers of government, particularly if you start with a parish council, but I am not sure that that poor relationship is something that this Government should try to prescribe a route through.
There are many changes taking place in the way in which local government is run. Many new arrangements are having to be made, as I said earlier, about management, about sharing chief executives across councils and districts and about sharing services, all of which ought to make it much easier for local government to avoid the elephant traps that my noble friend is talking about. In the light of the concern that there is, I will reflect on this issue before the next stage. I do not think that I would hold my breath that we will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendments, but I certainly hear the sentiments that have been expressed in the House today.
Lord True
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the final part of her response. I take some hope and encouragement from that. I hope that she will reflect on the matter; I certainly will. I had no expectation that my amendment was going to be a perfectly framed answer on this subject. However, I earnestly submit that there is a strong localist argument behind this point. I am content to withdraw my modest localising amendment if perhaps at a later stage the Government might return to me with the withdrawal of some of their rather immodest centralising proposals. I thank my noble friend for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not wish to prolong proceedings, but I have not had an opportunity to say how much I agree with the general thrust of many of the things that are being said. It may be that, at a later stage, it will be possible, through Amendment 84DA, to leave out a “must” and put in a “may”. Those who advise the Secretary of State, and who have the pleasure of writing all sorts of guidance for local authorities, could continue to do so and we could pay due respect to the importance of that guidance and to guidance that came from other sources. Then perhaps everyone would be delighted and a little localism might reign.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are back again to the same arguments that we had on the previous amendment on area committees. It relies on the regulations. I thank my noble friend Lord True for suggesting a way in which amendments might come. I think we need to look carefully at what has been said. Perhaps I need to review this before the next stage to see whether anything needs to be done about these provisions.
Lord True
My Lords, I support in some measure the remarks of my noble friend Lord Tope. I hear what is said about the Centre for Public Scrutiny and all its recommendations. Equally, I hear all that the Government want to say about scrutiny. I am sure that there are two very worthy industries involved here that may well come together. I support the recommendation that my noble friend has made to come forward with thickets of advice to local authorities on these subjects—may the twain meet.
However, as this debate goes on, I sometimes wonder whether the end result might be that parts of the Government involved in providing guidance and regulations could be hived off as a social enterprise, perhaps co-operating with other areas in local government. They could sell the benefits of their advice to local authorities and we might be able to reduce the size of government and perhaps, in partnership, improve the quality of advice. That is a slightly impish suggestion but, on the other hand, it is not entirely without seriousness.
I particularly support Amendment 47A, which addresses the point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I think that it would allow issues that were not technically local government matters to be referred to scrutiny. I support Amendment 48A on a probing basis. It would delete from the Bill the words:
“Guidance under subsection (3) may make different provision for different cases”.
This means that if a member of an authority wants to say to a scrutiny chairman, “I think this is something you need to look into”, first, he has to refer to the existing legislation, which is before us, and look up the bible of guidance that will be issued by the government department. He may then find that that guidance makes different provision for different cases, with scrutiny into this or that or some other circumstances, and he is therefore entering a potential nightmare world. I know that my noble friend, local government and outside advisers do not want to go there, but I return to my general point. I hope that those discussions can take place but I hope that the presiding principle in all this will be to minimise the requirements on local authorities to read, mark, learn, inwardly digest and obey. Let us please have localism.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments, and I start by saying that I shall be helpful in relation to some but not to others. As noble Lords have said, the various amendments in the group seek to remove the guidance or regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State—a common theme this afternoon. In each case, the powers enable certain safeguards to be in place. Although noble Lords are critical of regulation, sometimes it is necessary at the same time to protect other aspects with which they are concerned.
Amendment 45A would remove the ability to issue guidance on important matters such as scrutiny chairs, as we discussed on the previous group. Amendments 48A, 48B and 48C would remove the requirement for members to have regard to guidance and the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power in relation to the referral of matters to a scrutiny committee. However, as I said, these powers enable the Secretary of State to ensure that certain important safeguards are in place. We have discussed some of them, such as vexatious or discriminatory matters being placed before a scrutiny committee, which we talked about on the previous amendment. I do not think that it is unreasonable that that sort of aspect should be ruled out of the scrutiny committee’s responsibilities. Some might take that view and some might not but I think it is sensible that they are left with no option about that. As well as rights of appeal, the amendments would also exclude matters that are already statutory processes, such as planning and licensing decisions or matters relating, for example, to an individual. Therefore, I shall not be able to accept those amendments.
Amendments 49U and 49V would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to guard against the duplication of requests by scrutiny committees to other partner bodies. They are regulations that seek to minimise the burden on such authorities and make best use of the available information.
Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B and 49D to 49T also look to reform existing scrutiny provisions by simplifying and expanding the definition of “partner bodies”. They would expand the matters in relation to which scrutiny committees may rely on their powers, removing the link to local area agreements—which we have already agreed I should look at—and extending the powers of district council scrutiny committees, among other things, as we have already discussed.
As I said in the debate on the previous group, we do not believe that the existing framework hampers innovative practices by scrutiny committees. However, I have some sympathy with the aims of some of the amendments, and, again, I shall draw them into the discussions that we need to have. They seek to bring up to date the scrutiny regime that sits across various Acts of Parliament in light of recent changes, so it is right that we should look at them.
I am happy to consider Amendments 47A, 49A, 49B, and 49D to 49T. In debating previous amendments, we also discussed committee system authorities and the operation of scrutiny. Our view is that such authorities should be able to choose to have overview and scrutiny committees. Proposed new Section 9JA makes this clear. Removing the section entirely would create confusion. It would be unclear whether committee system authorities could operate scrutiny committees, and what the role and powers of such committees would be if they did. Therefore, the amendment is proposing that is unnecessary.
The provisions that Amendments 87ZB to 87ZD seek to change replicate existing provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, which reflect the important interests that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have in the provision of education, given the significant number of voluntary-aided schools in most if not all local authorities. It is correct that these significant partners in education should by right have representation on the relevant scrutiny committees. Therefore, we do not support the amendments.
With those explanations, the realisation that we discussed some issues when debating the previous group of amendments, and my acceptance of further discussions on some of the amendments, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord True
I thank the noble Lord. I have seen his Amendment 81B, and obviously that implies the direction he is coming from, but I certainly do not want to be unhelpful to the Committee in any way. My objective, which the Government have now said is theirs as well, is to erase the principle of shadow mayors. However, I agree that the point of principle he has raised does merit discussion at some point in our proceedings. I will be as co-operative as I can, under advice.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, unfortunately these amendments were grouped and degrouped rather speedily overnight, so we were slightly surprised to see this morning where the degroupings were. However, I accept the fact that the noble Lord will want to deal with the referendum issue at the next stage. Is there an amendment to which he wants to return? Otherwise I will accept all the amendments I have already said that I would accept, and I will go through them quietly again. The noble Lord indicates that he does not have an amendment to which he wants to return. That being the case, within the groupings of the noble Lord, Lord True, I shall list which amendments I am willing to accept, and if there are any differences about that, we shall look at the issue again. The amendments are Amendments 62A, 66A, 69A, 69B, 69C, 73A, 74A, 75A, 77A, 77B, 79A, 81A, 84A, 84B, 84C, 84D, 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 108A and 187. In listing them, I repeat the undertaking that I gave at the outset of Committee to remove the provisions for mayoral management arrangements.
I shall deal finally with Amendment 56, to which I suspect the noble Lord will want to return at some stage. The amendment would remove the provisions about whether an elected mayor is to be treated as a member or councillor of a local authority. I am told that these provisions replicate those in the Local Government Act 2000, which put in place the default position that a mayor is not to be treated as a member or councillor unless regulations provide that they should be. I do not know which side of the bed we are now on, or whether we are getting into it or out of it, as the noble Lord has said, but the default position is already in regulations.
Lord True
My Lords, perhaps I may take a minute of the House’s time and speak now to the two other amendments in the group on which I lead and which have the same welcome effect, as noble Lords on all sides have said. I, too, repeat my salute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the Minister. The separation of mayor and chief executive is a good idea and we should maintain it. I am grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope that we might be able to get back on track again without me having to swing round to make sure that I have done all the right things. We are happy to accept Amendment 57; I made clear my support for that previously in Committee. We recognise that there is great concern about the combination of the mayor and chief executive under the shadow arrangements and are content to support the amendment.
We are not quite so happy with Amendment 58 and I am going to reject it—I cannot see why, but I am. By the time we get round to the next stage I will have recovered my composure. I think that I was so taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, being so nice about me that I completely got underneath this. No doubt he will return to the issue at the next stage if he feels it necessary. In the mean time, I am not going to accept that amendment but have spoken to all the others.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Baroness Hanham
Lord True
My Lords, it could be that my attention wandered a little, in which case I apologise to the noble Lord. Looking at his amendment, it appears to me that a number of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by this amendment are precisely the powers which the noble Lord was arguing earlier should be removed or struck down in relation to local authorities. Perhaps the noble Lord could reassure me where the party opposite is because new Section 98C is a twin of Clause 5, which we were discussing earlier, and new Section 98D is a twin of Clause 7, which we were also discussing earlier. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain where the party opposite lies in relation to local authorities and ITAs.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this was discussed in the other place. My honourable friend Andrew Stunell gave an assurance that this matter would be looked at and that the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport would be drawn to the debate in Hansard, which would have been very much along the lines of the debate here this evening about making decisions on what should be done.
I cannot go further than to say that discussions are taking place between the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport. I will expect to have details of them in the not too distant future. It would be sensible, if and when we know the outcome of the discussions—and I am sure we will—for the noble Lord to come and talk to me about it before Report, when we can discuss whether the amendment is appropriate and correct. I am happy to offer him that discussion, depending on the outcome of the discussions between the two Secretaries of State.