Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body (Abolition) Regulations 2022
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best(1 year, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 22 November and, if agreed, will give legal effect to the decision of both Houses, taken in July of this year, to pass Motions endorsing the House commissions’ report for a revised mandate for the restoration and renewal programme.
Since the sponsor body was established by the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, concerns have been raised about the conclusions reached in the initial assessment of the emerging costs and timescales. The House of Lords Commission, alongside the House of Commons Commission, expressed concern about the costs and timescales presented by the sponsor body, and I shared some of these concerns. That is why the Government, with the commissions in both Houses, have supported the development of a revised mandate. I am grateful for the collaborative way in which Speaker’s Counsel in the House of Commons has worked with officials in both Houses, including the deputy counsel to the Chairman of Committees, to draft these regulations and for the ongoing advice we have received from the R&R directors.
The new approach to the parliamentary building works will continue to ensure that, as provided for in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, Members of both Houses will be consulted. Peers and all those who work in this place will have a chance to express their views on the works. When making critical strategic choices relating to restoration and renewal, the R&R client board will keep in mind the principles agreed by both Houses to deliver a new value-for-money approach that prioritises safety.
The commissions, in a March 2022 meeting, agreed a new approach to the restoration and renewal programme, guided by the principles of prioritising health and safety, ensuring maximum value for money and integration with other critical works on the estate. It is important that all members of the parliamentary community feel that they are engaged on the parliamentary building works, and I am confident that these new arrangements will deliver the required step change in engagement.
In 2018, both Houses agreed that major works to the Palace of Westminster would be essential in order to ensure that this historic and iconic building remains for generations to come. It was decided that the project should be undertaken by a delivery authority and overseen by a sponsor body. The Parliamentary Building Works (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 set out the governance arrangements for the project by creating these bodies and conferring particular functions on them. However, earlier this year, the two House commissions recommended a new approach to the programme whereby a new two-tier in-house governance structure would be established.
These regulations, which are made under Section 10 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, will abolish the sponsor body, which will be replaced with an in-house governance structure. The statutory responsibilities and other functions of the sponsor body will transfer to the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—in other words, the clerks of each House.
The Leader of the House of Commons and I have consulted the corporate officers and the commissions of both Houses, in accordance with Section 10(8)(a) of the Act, and both corporate officers have consented to the transfers to them effected by this instrument, in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Act. Ultimately, both corporate officers will have joint responsibility for the parliamentary building works and will, at least once a year, prepare and lay a report before Parliament about the carrying out of the parliamentary building works and the progress that has been made towards completion of those works.
I am aware that Peers have previously raised concerns that without the sponsor body in place, the project may not have sufficient expertise. First, the Houses will not lose the expertise gained by the sponsor body, and the team of staff with that expertise will be brought in-house, as a joint department, and be accountable to the corporate officers. I also emphasise that the delivery authority will not be affected by the regulations; its role is unchanged, although it will now be closer to the Houses. This ensures that the programme retains its valuable experience and expertise. These regulations will allow for greater co-ordination and engagement between the Houses and the delivery authority, which could in turn allow for the delivery of restoration works much sooner. Similarly, the regulations will not alter the role of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission; it will remain in place and will scrutinise the delivery authority’s estimates.
This statutory instrument is vital to ensuring that this historic building is restored, while making sure that we deliver for the British taxpayer. Our commitment to ensuring good value for money is reflected in Section 2(5) of the restoration and renewal Act, and it is an approach that I will prioritise.
I would like to reassure colleagues that the House’s important role in this project is not diminished by the regulations. Under Section 7 of the 2019 Act, no restoration works, other than preparatory works, can be carried out until Parliament has approved the delivery authority proposals for those works. In addition, further approval is required for any proposals that would significantly affect the design, timing or duration of the parliamentary building works. Bringing this project in-house is an opportunity, as an in-house governance structure should improve accountability and engagement with Parliament by allowing a close interaction with and accountability to the commissions of the two Houses. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his opening remarks. Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Deighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I am a member of the board of the restoration and renewal sponsor body, which is now to be abolished under the terms of this statutory instrument. We were charged with implementing the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, and I have been acting as the spokesperson responsible for reporting to your Lordships’ House on behalf of the board.
Before we go, the board has bequeathed to its successors a synopsis of the lessons we have learned from our experience over the last two and a half years. Our letter to the chairs of the new client board and new programme board will be publicly available on Monday. Perhaps I can draw out that letter’s three interconnected conclusions. First, the governance structure devised by the R&R Act was flawed. The theory was that creating an autonomous arm’s-length sponsor body would mean freedom from political interference and would expedite swift progress after years of delay. This was naive. The reality was that the relevant parliamentarians retained a controlling role. The work of the sponsor body was constantly held back and confused by the views of parliamentarians, particularly those on the House of Commons Commission who were not committed to the large-scale R&R programme envisaged by the 2019 Act.
In particular, there was antipathy towards a full decant of the Palace. We believed this to be necessary if the essential works, most notably to sort out the horrendous underground labyrinth of pipes and cables in the basement, were to be carried out expeditiously and safely. Indeed, a decant was part of the legislative framework we were obliged to follow. Lack of agreement on this fundamental part of the R&R process high- lighted the inherent conflict built into the governance arrangements for a supposedly independent sponsor body.
Under the new arrangements, the work of the sponsor body, with its oversight of the delivery authority, is to be taken in-house, with its functions transferred to the corporate officers: the clerks of the two Houses. Hopefully, this means that an in-built source of disagreement and crossed wires will now be removed. Our successors will be able to act as a single, united client speaking with one voice in championing the programme and progressing the works—I hope.
However, this leads to a second conclusion. There has never been clarity on the budget, timescale or scope of the R&R exercise. That clarity is now needed if our successors are to avoid endless delays and a waste of public funds, with the delivery authority instructed to undertake unnecessary work. If there are maximum or minimum levels, for example of accessibility in the Palace or of its energy efficiency and sustainability, these need to be stipulated. If Parliament is never going to accept a total cost for the whole project of more than X pounds or a decant period of more than Y years, that needs to be crystal clear up front and as soon as possible.
Thirdly, and finally, the outgoing board accepts with the wisdom of hindsight that we should have recognised that the sudden changes to the country’s fortunes meant a course correction was inevitable. It is obvious in retrospect that when the Covid pandemic struck, followed by turmoil in the economy, a retreat from the measures envisaged by the 2019 Act was going to be called for. Our successors and our colleagues in the delivery authority need to be ready for changes of direction and be prepared for fresh thinking as external circumstances alter.
At the end of this frustrating experience, I remain of the view that, although it will cost a fortune and will need everyone to move out of the building for a prolonged period sooner or later, none the less, the restoration and renewal of Parliament is an incredibly worthwhile initiative. Research shows that the wider public hope for and expect a full refurbishment of this much-loved building. Investment in this great endeavour will support skills, crafts and businesses throughout the UK. A proper R&R programme would not only render the building safe from fire, asbestos, the breakdown of services, falling masonry and the rest but actually save money, and possibly save lives, over the years ahead.
However, I recognise the constraints for elected Members of Parliament. I do not face constituents who may well say, “While we’re struggling through a cost of living crisis, Parliament is spending billions on its own comfort”. Also, the dark cloud of moving out for several years to a less amenable base elsewhere colours everybody’s judgment. Nevertheless, although the process may have lost two or three years, I hope that our successors will have the courage and determination to see it through.
What has been achieved will provide a solid basis for the next stages. Most of the excellent staff in the sponsor body and the development authority will carry on, and their work to date, despite operating throughout the Covid pandemic and through times of political and economic turmoil, has produced a vast quantity of data and physical survey work that will now make possible a clear plan. This plan may mean a succession of more modest mini-programmes stretching into the indefinite future, rather than the single major programme that we pursued, but, if the big issue of the basement renewal can be sorted, all is not lost.
In concluding our work today, we all wish our successors well. We hope that, despite the failure of the 2019 Act, progress will now be made in restoring this internationally recognised and iconic Palace for which the nation is right to feel huge pride and affection.
Covid-19: Debt Collection
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to reform debt collection processes (1) during, and (2) after, the COVID-19 pandemic in response to (a) the report by the Centre for Social Justice Collecting Dust: A path forward for government debt collection, published on 26 April, and (b) representations from Citizens Advice, the StepChange Debt Charity and the Money Advice Trust.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the Centre for Social Justice report and look forward to advice sector representations. We responded to Covid-19 by pausing outbound debt collection and on 29 June published a call for evidence to inform post-Covid policy in this important area. Central Government have for some time had a debt strategy that advocates the use of the widely welcomed fairness principles. Each local authority, however, is responsible for its own autonomous interpretation of the relevant debt management legislation on, for example, council tax enforcement.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his positive response. A debt management Bill would establish clear protocols and an independent regulator for bailiffs as proposed by the Centre for Social Justice and others. Does the Minister agree that heavy-handed debt collection processes, principally by some local authorities owed council tax, are costly, ineffective and often ruinous for those concerned? Will the problem not get much worse post Covid, if we do not act now?
Lord True
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, action was taken in 2014 in relation to enforcement agents. This is an area under examination. We have recently launched the call for evidence to inform policy, as I mentioned. That will obviously influence the consideration of whether a debt management Bill is a proportionate and reasonable response.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best
Lord Best
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Porter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, are in agreement on this. They both oppose the fact that this levy will be solely on those authorities that have retained stock and a housing revenue account, and that it will be a very large sum of money—£4.5 billion per annum on those councils that have retained their stock, and nothing on those councils that have transferred their stock. The noble Lord, Lord True, can read my script at his leisure. He felt I was saying that housing associations should not contribute but councils should. I am absolutely not saying that councils should carry the burden of the right-to-buy discounts for housing association tenants, as he thought that I might be. I am saying that neither councils nor housing associations should pay for this new policy and that we should see new investment, which is what we need to replace homes that are lost, and to build new homes. We need new investment.
I happen to know a bit about the Richmond Housing Partnership, which is the body to which the stock of Richmond has been transferred. It is a really excellent example of a housing association that has received the council stock and is doing extremely important things to build more homes. It is doing exactly the right thing. It would be a terrible shame if, instead of councils or the Government paying for these discounts, that organisation were taxed with a levy—that would be very detrimental to the interests of Richmond—and had to pay for the right-to-buy sales. It is making some serious economies at the moment. It is having to make efficiency gains on a big scale because its rents have been reduced due to welfare reform pressures. Nevertheless, it is doing a great job. It would be a very big shame if the idea gained any momentum at all today that housing associations were the cash cow from which could be extracted the resources to pay the £4.5 billion per annum. That would simply take resources out of the development programme for the very people for whom we need to build the new homes of tomorrow.
Lord True
My Lords, I do not want to delay the Committee on a specific point, but since the noble Lord, Lord Best, has identified a housing association which I have tried not to identify, I should say that of course I have great respect for that housing association in many respects. It has done certain things that I would not have done but this is not the place to discuss that. I am sure that he has friendly views towards local authorities. Indeed, I know that he has and welcome that. But it is a fact—he has confirmed this—that the noble Lord, Lord Porter, is correct in saying that housing associations will not make a contribution to this policy.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Local Government Association. We are not actually discussing the stand part debate at this moment. We have a bunch of amendments on which I detect that everyone, including both the previous Secretaries of State who have talked on this, actually agrees—namely, that if the Secretary of State is to have the power to take away powers currently in the hands of local authorities for planning, then we may need to put in place some constraints on the use by the Secretary of State of that new power. These amendments are all about putting some constraints on the Secretary of State, and they seem to be entirely reasonable and proper. Nick Boles, the Minister may get his way; he says quite clearly, and I am sure that he is right to do so, that Clause 1 is intended as a deterrent and that,
“it would, in fact, apply to very few authorities. Indeed, I hope it would apply to no authorities, should they improve their performance”.—[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, Commons, 27/11/12; col. 242.]
Fair enough; there may be a requirement on some local authorities to do better than they do at the moment. But if they can show that improvement, then I think we would all be clear that the Secretary of State would not be able to use a new power.
The consultation paper suggests that there are really two criteria here on which local authorities would be judged. The local plan does not feature very prominently but they are about the performance at appeal; quality, which is measured by the approval rate by local authorities; and speed—how fast they do it within the timetables that have been set. On the first of those measures, the performance at appeal, it is fair to say that no local authority at the moment would fail this test at all. If you take account of the fact that a local authority is quite entitled to come up with a negative view, even if the inspectorate goes against it later, it is only really where costs are awarded against a local authority that one could say that that local authority had not been behaving in a proper and sensible manner.
There are so very few cases of costs being awarded that I do not think anyone would fall on performance at appeal. It is speed—timeliness—on which local authorities are likely to be judged to be failing. Here it is possible for local authorities to change their ways in order to speed up. At the moment there is no intimation that those that are already demonstrating in their direction of travel that they are improving their performance will be acknowledged or taken into account. Northumberland County Council’s performance under the speed/timeliness measure has improved in the following way over the past 12 months, for example: it had 30% of its major applications determined within 13 weeks in the third quarter of 2011 and that was improved to 48% the following quarter, 52% the quarter after that and 57% the quarter after that. Improvements can happen. Clearly, local authorities need to be given the time, the space, the opportunity and the support to make those improvements before a very heavy-handed removal of powers ever takes place.
I offer here, as I think that I am mandated to do so, the helping hand of the Local Government Association in trying to secure those improvements. It has furnished me with a whole list of recommendations from local authorities that, in various respects, have been able to dramatically improve performance using the techniques, the peer-group opportunities, that the LGA brings. I think there is agreement in this House—and I hope the Minister will be able to go with this tide of approval—wherever we come from on the bigger point of principle, that there must be constraints and opportunities for local authorities to demonstrate improvement, given plenty of time and opportunity to do that, before the Secretary of State even contemplates doing what we are told he does not really want to do in the first place: use this new power.
Lord True
My Lords, I must also declare an interest as leader of a London local council that is a planning authority and as a member of the leaders committee of London Councils, but I should make it clear that I in no way speak on behalf of London Councils.
I shall not follow the Second Reading or clause stand part tone of the debate because I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, has summed up rather well the mood of the Committee on this. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding made a very wide-ranging speech which cited a series of people with great acronyms and of great importance, including a professor, saying that the planning system is a great economic drag on the country and we must do something. One could say such things of employment law, health and safety, transport regulations or any number of things. It is not in itself an argument to remove elements of a system. The question that we must ask in this Committee is whether the remedies are proportionate, whether their administration is going to be objective and whether, overall, they will be conducive to the public good. I actually think that some of the things in the Bill answer that test positively and a number, as I said at Second Reading, resoundingly negatively. We must find the balance in Committee.
I must apologise to your Lordships in advance that I will be limited in the time that I can be present in the Committee, which may come as welcome news to some. I have a council meeting this evening. Doubtless I shall pass the scoutmaster’s hut on the way to the council meeting—that was something for the chairman of my party to note. I will also be unable to participate in Committee sittings next week. I apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister for that. I know the Minister will be listening courteously, as she always does, to everything said.
I want to make a relatively narrow point on important amendments that my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have tabled. We will come on to discuss the criteria in the next group. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made about the criteria is accurate. I made the same point at Second Reading. It is not enough for a current Minister to say, “I will only use these criteria”—which we have not yet seen—“for a limited number of purposes”. A future Minister given extraordinarily wide powers by your Lordships could use them in a very different way. I am sure that is something that we will examine later as we proceed. As Committees of your Lordships’ House have said, greater defences need to be built into the system.
I also think that a period of notice is a useful and important defence to build into the system, not only for the reasons that have been cited. I am not going into the question of whether it should be 18 months or 12 months or of what it should be, but what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has put before us is a very important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. That period is a safety margin in which a local authority can improve, but it is also a brake on precipitate action by the Secretary of State. It may be that I can be disabused by the Minister either now or on Report, but it looks as though the Secretary of State can just pop up, presumably on the basis of the criteria that we will have seen by Report, and say, “Toytown Borough Council, you are hereby designated”, and the next day a developer can whack in an application to the Secretary of State and, heigh-ho, off we go, everybody is happy, particularly the developer. It may be that in existing law and in the Bill there are things that prevent that, but if that can happen, there is a great moral hazard in any Executive having this sort of power. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, used a phrase: he said that people might “game the system”. I do not know whether that is true, but I dare day that there are ways in which you could game a system to make it look as though a local authority was not performing well.
I am slightly more worried that somebody might play the system and say, “We are having terrible trouble with these people”. Perhaps they would go along to the Treasury or some other place and say, “Well, Toytown Borough Council is not performing. It needs to be designated”. Somewhere—I would prefer via Parliament by law, in either primary or secondary legislation—there should be some brake on the moral hazard of the Executive saying, “We are designating these people, and we are going to do it tomorrow”.
That is another potentially useful aspect of time. When we have a planning application before us, we have to put online all the representations that are made. Where will be the representations that are privately being made to Ministers about bad authorities? Will they be placed online by the department as they are submitted, prior to the Secretary of State making his decision? I do not know, but I think that this aspect of potential designation should be considered. A pause, a warning, or a period in which the Secretary of State can be challenged to justify the action he proposes to take, beforehand as well as afterwards, would be useful.
There is a case for Clause 1. I do not agree with those who would like to see no long-stop power. However, the line of argument which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has opened up is very fruitful. It would be good for local authorities and the planning system, and it might be good for future Governments as well.
Local Government Finance Bill
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best
Lord True
My Lords, I also spoke at Report so I will be brief. It gives me some distress to say to my noble friend Lord Tope that, when he said that this amendment addresses the arguments against the amendment that we debated at such huge length on Report, I cannot agree with him. It does not address certain fundamental points of principle. I acknowledge that it is supported widely within the Local Government Association and by many council leaders who will be glad for a penny if they can get hold of one. However, the reality is that when you are making decisions about council tax you are not making decisions within a single box relating to benefit, you are looking at the totality of a local authority’s budget and budgetary decisions.
I hear my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who I unreservedly admire and whose expertise on these matters the House respects hugely. With respect, however, I must say that I think he is wrong to try to construct a doctrine whereby the Government are saying that because they had not consulted, Parliament cannot determine—because of course Parliament can determine. I made that point on Report. I say as a local authority leader that we have not consulted on this matter. We have not asked the public about it because it was not within the parameters of the scheme that was proposed.
Were Parliament suddenly to decide that this new broadening of the tax base should take place, it would be an enormous surprise to the council tax payers in almost every authority up and down the land suddenly to discover that a new tax was falling on many single person households. While I acknowledge that the popular and sensible move to protect pensioners is being taken, that only means that this change will bear down more heavily on other people involved as recipients of this discount, such as lone parents. We discussed that on Report. The amendment would mean that it would fall even more disproportionately on those heads.
Regardless of whether the provision is a doctrine of government, I do not think that the amendment addresses the problem. I have said throughout the course of the Bill’s passage that I would have preferred for this to be wrapped up in universal credit. I have been open about that. But it is a bit like the lady who swallowed a fly and then had to swallow a spider to catch the fly. It would make a further structural change in council tax benefit, which by definition has not been thought through or considered, to impose taxation on a large subset of single-parent households. I do not know whether we are talking about 8 million or 5 million of them; it could be fewer. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. But I do not think that that is a good way to make policy. It seems to be making policy on the hoof. Some of us might think that we are having rather a lot of that lately and I do not think that this House should add to it.
Lord Best
My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. Indeed, it would be very strange if I did not support it since I have worked on this issue for some months. With help from my indefatigable colleagues at the LGA, we have formulated this revised version of my earlier amendment after last week’s debate. So perhaps I should explain why it is not me who chose to bring this back before your Lordships.
The original amendment would have given full discretion to local authorities to vary the single person discount. This would have enabled councils to raise the necessary funds to compensate for the Government’s 10% cut to council tax benefit, making it unnecessary for them to start levying council tax on the poorest non-pensioner households. The modifications in this new version of the amendment, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, seek to address the criticisms raised in the debate last Tuesday. They limit the flexibility for councils to reduce the single person discount from 25% to no less than 20% and maintain the full 25% discount for single pensioners, regardless of their income. These constraints would very probably have been adopted by local authorities in any case, but having them in the Bill means there can be no cries of, “It’s a widow’s tax” or “It could mean lone parents being asked to pay another £5 per week”. The revised amendment means that most widows would be excluded and virtually everyone paying council tax in the bottom council tax bands would be charged well under £1 per week more. The relatively few single people in the most valuable properties, those in the top council tax bands, would be likely to see an increase of only a little over £2 per week if their council chose to use the discretionary power to the full. Since the single person discount reduction would come in a year when the Government are requiring another freeze for the overarching level of council tax, the reduction from 25% to 20% could not be even a fraction as painful and problematic as cutting council tax benefits by £3 to £5 or more for the poorest.
I had hoped very much that the Government and those of your Lordships who were hesitant to support the more open-ended amendment would be brought on board by the modified version. The LGA has articulated the very strong support of council leaders for this amendment, most particularly those leaders representing less affluent areas where more people are in receipt of council tax benefit and there are fewer opportunities to raise more taxation from high-value empty properties or second homes. This is the lifeline that could save councils from having to cut services or support to the most economically and socially vulnerable.
I promised my Cross Bench colleagues, who have been incredibly supportive, that if I failed to secure any movement in the position of the Government or the Labour Benches, I would not try their patience further and take up the time of the House with a battle that could not be won. Sadly, the Minister has made clear to me that despite the strength of feeling of the LGA and local authorities of all political persuasions, the Government will not budge. Equally, noble Lords on the opposition Front Bench have remained adamant that despite the strongest representations by Labour councils, they cannot support any change to the fixed 25% single person discount. I have had to conclude that my efforts have failed and it is not for me to bring back this matter to the Floor of the House. It would be like entering Frankel for a final race in the knowledge that he was bound to lose. However, I entirely respect the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, in continuing the fight, and of course I am hugely appreciative of the magnificent support that I and the LGA have had from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, throughout this lengthy saga.
Maybe there will be a last-minute change of heart by the Government or the opposition Front Bench. Certainly, all concerned have had a chance to see if the Government’s transitional £100 million grant could save the day. The verdict, I fear, is that although it will put back the day of reckoning for a year in some areas, it will not save the day in the least well-off areas, and for future years, of course, the position remains untenable in very many more places.
It may be that all that is left is a protest vote, but if protesting is all that we can do at this stage then protest I do. It is terrible to impose on councils the task of collecting taxes from people who do not have the money to pay; and it is terrible to subject those already struggling to survive on the very lowest incomes to a further reduction in their living standards. I do protest and, of course, I strongly support this amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best
My Lords, I, too, support the role of councillors and their engagement in these processes, but I do not think that this is an either/or. My name is against Amendments 69, 71 and 72. If people do not wish to go to the councillor for any reason, surely they should have the opportunity to go directly to the ombudsman service. My interest is that I have been on the receiving end of the ombudsman’s judgment, complaints having been made about organisations that I have chaired and run, and I think the ombudsman service is great. It resolves complaints that have been running sometimes for ages; the filing cabinet is full of going backwards and forwards, the ombudsman sorts it out, the decision is final. It is a professional service. The British and Irish Ombudsman Association thinks that an essential ingredient in any ombudsman service is that the consumer has a right of direct access to that service.
I chair the Council of the Property Ombudsman, which looks after the private sector, separate from the arrangements for the Housing Ombudsman in the social housing sector. In the private sector, of course, tenants can go direct to the ombudsman; they do not have to go to a council, an MP or a tenant panel. That system works extremely well. I have watched the process from both sides of the fence. Ombudsman services really work and direct access to them seems an important ingredient.
We have one example. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said he did not think that there were any examples of there being a bureaucratic filter of this kind, but I think the Parliamentary Ombudsman is the last outpost of this approach. It applied to the Local Government Ombudsman but was scrapped as it was found to be unworkable and unnecessary, but with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, going through your MP remains. However, Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, says:
“The MP filter delays the resolution of complaints by the ombudsman and even deters some people from taking their complaints to the ombudsman at all”.
I think it likely, as a result of the consultation now going on, that the filter will be dropped in that last case of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. So let us by all means engage councillors and encourage people to go to their councillor—sometimes that can be the best kind of mediation and local way of organising things—but let us allow people, if they wish, to go direct to the ombudsman service. It is there as a professional body and it sorts things out.
Lord True
My Lords, I also declare an interest as a local councillor. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that my aged aunt, who has a great fear of spiders, says, “In September and October never talk about a spider, otherwise you will talk one up”, and one invariably comes up. I heard what he said about the contributions of Members on this side to these debates. When he makes such comments, I have to point out that we made very little progress with groups yesterday and there may be some connection—not with the Conservatives but with other Members in the Chamber.
I wish to follow very strongly what my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Tope said. I have visited a number of authorities and it is true, sadly, that in many authorities where there has been large-scale voluntary transfer, there is a growing disjunction between the council side and RSLs. As I see it, aspects of this proposal from the Government may be designed to break that down and to reinforce the role of a councillor. In my authority we have introduced a tenants’ champion system in order to encourage people to use the local resource of the council as a first resource for complaint and redress against social landlords. That is desirable. Surely in the spirit of this Bill things should be settled as locally as they can be. There are all forms of bureaucracy and the ombudsman system in itself is potentially that. I agree that tenants may not need a filter, but in some circumstances they may need a local champion.
I am not quite so absolutist about these proposals as some others who have spoken. However, I hope that my noble friend will listen to the debate, particularly to the points made by my noble friend Lord Tope, and see whether some middle ground can be found that will enable tenants to have this recourse, but perhaps in the normal course of events to encourage people to seek to settle matters locally.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
I have taken some part in this Bill and, on the basis of having spent 13 rather misspent years in the usual channels, I heard what my noble friend Lord Lucas and others have said about potentially sitting on another day. As other noble Lords have said, I would be very willing to do that to make progress on the Bill. I did not hear the noble Lord opposite express similar willingness.
One thing that I looked up, which might be helpful to these discussions, is what has happened in previous years. This is in fact the earliest date on which the House would rise in July since and including 1996, apart from 2003. If one looks at three separate years after the party opposite formed a Government, in 1998 we were asked to sit until 31 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; in 2002 we were asked to sit until 30 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated; and in 2006 we were asked to sit until 25 July and noble Lords on this side co-operated. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask noble Lords opposite to show the same willingness as noble Lords on this side have to allow the usual channels some flexibility in considering not only sitting late but perhaps allowing an extra day to complete this important Bill.
Lord Best
Perhaps a word could be said from the Cross Benches, too. I have quite a lot of the amendments that might detain us further on. Although we must all accommodate whatever the usual channels decide, it is quite late notice for next Thursday suddenly to be removed from our diaries when we had every reason to expect to be on Recess at that time and had other plans. I, for one, would be letting down an awful lot of other people, which I may have to do if we have to sit next Thursday. If it is of any help—and I am sure that we all have our different preferences—I would be quite prepared to go into all hours of the night on Wednesday night and will try to remain fresh, if that is required of me.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord True and Lord Best(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best
My Lords, Amendment 128B is in my name. I do not think that we have given the Government enough credit for the amendment that we heard of earlier today, because that seemed to me to satisfy, if not entirely—I want to dwell on that—a good deal of the misgivings that we have had about referendums applying to the world of planning. We now have an amendment that will mean that planning applications are taken out of the reach of petitions and referendums. That is an enormous difference from where we were yesterday. I want to place on record my appreciation to the Government for taking that forward. It means that another laboriously prepared speech of mine is now redundant, but the amendment is extremely welcome.
Our hesitations about where we have got to are as follows. We understand that discretion is there for local authorities not to go ahead with referendums if there is a statutory process that gives members of the public opportunities to make representations and a statutory right of appeal or of investigation through a review. However, although that clearly applies to individual planning applications—great stuff—does that apply to all of the processes of preparing local development plans? I think that it must cover the preparation of the local development frameworks. If it did not cover the local authority preparing its local development plan, that would be disastrous. Throughout local government, we are already way behind in getting those local development frameworks undertaken. The abolition of regional spatial strategies means that we will be in limbo if local authorities do not have their own local development plans. We must get on with that. It would be incredibly difficult for the Government to pursue their growth agenda and do the good things that they want to do in terms of the development of renewable energy and the development of new homes if the threat of referendums was hanging over the creation of local development plans.
Beyond that, there are supplementary planning documents. They may not have the full panoply of examination in public and independent inspection in all cases. For removal of doubt, it would be better to have an amendment such as that in my name or in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that takes the whole of the planning scene out of the referendum process. If we cannot, can we at least have firm reassurance that the process of producing local development plans, with the supplementary elements that go with them—the whole of that process—will be excluded by this excellent amendment?
Lord True
My Lords, I am sorry to strike a discordant note, but I strongly disagree with aspects of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Best, in relation to parts of the planning system. We discussed this briefly earlier, and I will not reiterate my remarks then.
My noble friend Lord Taylor undertook to write to me about referendums where a London borough, in the case I gave, may have set up an indicative planning brief but the higher, regional authority intervened with an alternative proposal. I think it is entirely justifiable—indeed, desirable—that there should be a referendum in those cases. It would be most unfortunate if the legislation ruled out such an eventuality. It would disfranchise people on some of the most basic and fundamental issues that affect their lives and the nature of how their community develops.
I certainly could not support an amendment ranging as widely as that of my noble friend Lord Lucas. “Planning matters” is wording far too widely cast. Of course I agree with the point established in Committee; I think that most noble Lords agreed that we do not want to encourage referendums on individual planning applications. I also have very grave doubt about how far we should cast it in relation to local development plans and frameworks.
We have a local development framework at the moment, which it is clear that the public do not find satisfactory. As neighbourhood planning develops, a referendum might well be desired by people or wished for by the council. That is a useful device in an age of localism in involving people in such fundamental issues.
I hope that my noble friend will resist casting that constriction on the right of people to be heard on the neighbourhood and place in which they live. Nothing to my mind is more fundamental in the 21st century to the role of a local authority than the spirit of place. People’s opportunity to express their view about the nature of their place in terms of the broad planning framework under which they live in their communities seems to be absolutely vital. It would send a hard and difficult message if the Committee were to constrict that opportunity in the way suggested by the noble Lord.