Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the instrument brought forward today makes a practical provision to continue support of the effective administration of elections. It does this by extending the Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 for a further 12 months. These temporary regulations were first introduced ahead of the May 2021 elections. They allowed electors to appoint an emergency proxy, or change their existing proxy arrangement, up until 5 pm on the day of the poll where they were, or in fact their previously appointed proxy was, unable to attend a polling station due to Covid. This was without any form of attestation, which is normally required for a standard emergency proxy. It was part of a range of measures that helped ensure elections have been able to take place safely over the course of the last year.

While much has changed in the intervening 12 months, and is changing, extending this measure is prudent. While we have been able to remove a great many of the restrictions that Covid has made necessary, it is still the case that those who test positive for Covid are legally required to isolate—as some of their close contacts may be. While that is the case, and as the situation and exact nature of any isolation requirements going forward remain difficult to predict, we must ensure that those required to isolate are not, in the process of doing so, deprived of the ability to participate in the vital democratic process. So this is a tested and appropriate way to continue to protect that process during the pandemic. Now is not the right time to abandon this necessary temporary measure.

I will now move on to the specific details of the statutory instrument. The key purpose is to extend for a further 12 months the regulations brought into effect by the 2021 instrument, which is due to expire on 28 February 2022, so that instead it expires at the end of February 2023. We will keep this under review, and we will also consider repealing the regulations early, should they no longer remain necessary and proportionate.

The instrument will also remove the existing reference to the “clinically extremely vulnerable” and people who are

“at the highest risk of severe illness from coronavirus”

from the 2021 regulations. This terminology was used in England and Scotland respectively and its removal will bring the wording into line with the latest respective government guidance. Anyone following advice from a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse to isolate will still be able to apply for an emergency proxy under these rules. This ensures that electors unable to attend the polling station for Covid-related health reasons will not be adversely affected.

The instrument applies to UK parliamentary elections in Great Britain, police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales and local elections in England. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have also either extended their equivalent arrangements for their respective devolved elections or are in the process of doing so.

It is essential to our democracy that people are able to cast their vote. The 2021 regulations brought into effect a temporary measure to ensure that those required to isolate shortly before a poll could still vote, or that a proxy arrangement could be amended where the appointed proxy was unable to attend a polling station for Covid-related reasons. This instrument is a simple, yet vital, extension of that measure. It will cover local and mayoral elections in England scheduled for May 2022, as well as any applicable by-elections or unscheduled polls that occur before the May 2023 polls. However, as I outlined earlier, we will keep these measures under review and we will consider repealing them early, should they no longer remain necessary and proportionate.

I can assure noble Lords that we have consulted with the Electoral Commission and that it is supportive of this measure. I note also, and am grateful for, the cross-party support that the 2021 regulations received when brought forward last spring, and I hope very much that there will be support for their sensible and necessary extension. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this proposal to extend the rules governing late proxy vote applications as a consequence of coronavirus medical advice, including self-isolation, is appropriate and, as the Minister has just said, prudent. The consultation on the measures with the Parliamentary Parties Panel elicited no comments and the Electoral Commission seems content as well, so there is no reason, in my view, for this Committee to take a different view. It is anyway a sensible measure that is time-limited to a further 12 months.

I understand the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the clarity of the territorial and temporal limitations imposed by Regulations 1 and 2, but I also understand the complexities of drafting these regulations. The commitment of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to bear in mind the comments made about clarity should suffice, since this is in effect a one-year extension to an existing set of regulations.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest as leader of a local authority—a London borough council. I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister and to other Members of the Committee. I was unable to take part in Second Reading because we had a full council meeting that day and I could not stay until the end of proceedings. I am also afraid that when the Bill was in Committee last week, I was abroad on an unbreakable work engagement and so was unable to take part in the first two days. However, I have read the debate carefully and rise to speak with due humility. Having read the proceedings, I hope my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will not be disinclined to intervene—I enjoyed reading a large number of her interventions.

I say to the Committee how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for his openness and, through him, the willingness of his officials to discuss difficult issues. That needs to be put on record immediately. As my noble friend knows, I am a little concerned about where these proposals are intended to go—we could be bringing out a Dreadnought to deal with problems on the local public pond which, frankly, could be sorted out. I am grateful for the elucidation that my noble friend set out, but we need to understand a good bit more about how these regulations might work. For example, there is a requirement that the applicant must give written consent agreement. How many pages of regulations will there be to say in what terms that will be? Will it have to be legally sanctioned? When will it have to be delivered, et cetera? It says also that the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation before an order is made. How long will that take? With whom will it be? Will it be in an individual area or across the nation?

We all want to get development going more quickly. But my concern is that, in some circumstances—perhaps the noble Baroness opposite pointed to one when she talked about fear of flooding—pre-commencement conditions actually enable development to happen more quickly and with more consent, rather than, as is assumed, every council necessarily trying all the time to deter. I want to look very carefully at the detail of these proposals.

I am puzzled by the statement in subsection (2)(a) of the new section, to which the noble Lord opposite has referred, that the condition must be,

“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.

Make it acceptable to whom—to the local community, to the neighbourhood, to the people who will be affected or to the planning inspectorate in Bristol?

On the other hand, I cannot follow the noble Lord opposite—even though I understand where he is coming from—in proposing in his Amendment 37 setting up a mediation process. I spoke about this on the previous planning legislation we had before us, in which the Government set up a sort of national arbitration service concept. If one does not define this very closely, there is a risk that everything would automatically go to some sort of statutory arbitrator. That in itself could also clog up the system. With all the good will in the world, it may be that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord opposite is as guilty of causing potential obstacles as overregulation would.

I am not going to support any proposal that this provision be struck out—I see there is an amendment to that effect. I understand the Government’s concern to get development but we have not seen enough evidence. Between now and Report, and perhaps when my noble friend replies, we might get to understand a little better where and when the steel of a Dreadnought will be seen emerging from the department. I am a passionate localist: so much in recent planning legislation is about centralism and making things harder in the guise of getting development. I do not accept the view that local authorities are always against development. I look forward to hearing more from my noble friend, today and between now and Report, on the justification for these proposals.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have serious concerns about Clause 12, particularly about subsections (2), (5) and (6) in new Section 100ZA on pages 10 and 11. The Government are going to have to rethink this very carefully because, as it stands, Clause 12 will cause more problems than it solves. We have heard many reasons for this, but I will go further. What discussions have been held with the Royal Town Planning Institute? I ask the Minister that because it has sent a briefing on the Bill which states, broadly speaking, that there are advantages to pre-commencement planning conditions:

“These have certain advantages to applicants who may not be in a position to finalise details of a scheme but wish to secure a planning permission as soon as possible. They have advantages to local authorities because councils may have in practice limited legal ability to enforce conditions once a scheme is underway. Conditions are useful to the development industry in general because they enable schemes to be permitted which otherwise might have to be refused”.


If they were refused it would take longer and, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, you may get faster and better planning decisions as a consequence of having pre-commencement conditions. Refusal of planning permission should, in general, be avoided because of all the complexities which are then introduced.

In telling the Committee what discussions the Government have had with the Royal Town Planning Institute, will the Minister explain what consideration they have given to the 15th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was written substantially on the subject of Clause 12? It points out that,

“the national policy framework confirms that planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet six tests. They must be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and reasonable in all other respects”.

So that already exists within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 12 of the DPRRC report states that,

“the Government want to take this power because ‘there is evidence that some local planning authorities are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development’”.

There may well be such examples. If they do not meet the six tests, there is already a legal statutory requirement to demonstrate that the six tests are applied. But in paragraph 26 of the report, the DPRRC asked for,

“specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”—

which my noble friend Lady Parminter talked about—because:

“None appeared to be included in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill”.


The committee had to ask the DCLG to provide a list of,

“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”.

There are nine things on that list. With my long experience in local government, I can see a very good case for all nine of them. I will come back to this, with some practical examples of what goes wrong if you do not have pre-commencement planning conditions. But when I read that,

“installation of superfast broadband infrastructure”,

is not deemed to be required as a pre-commencement condition, I think this is wrong. We ought to have agreement on superfast broadband infrastructure, since within the next few years every part of the country is going to have it.

I will say more about this issue when we debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but it seems to me that if that is the extent of the problem, the things listed are not in themselves significant problems. I am really starting to think that Clause 12 is not a good clause. We will look at this further on Report, but at present I have to say that this clause will cause more problems than it solves.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, the hour is late and I should make it clear that I have never had any intention of pushing this amendment to a Division. The reason that I bring it before your Lordships is that this clause is effectively a proposal to set up a new quango. I welcomed the meeting that I had with officials earlier, and I was grateful to Ministers for facilitating it. I was told that it will probably not be formally a quango but a new, independent body to be served by people as yet unspecified. It will have a series of functions as set out in part over several pages of Schedule 13, which might have been drafted—it is a bit late, so I am perhaps a bit free with my words—as in that famous scene with Groucho Marx and the contract and “the party of the first part”. There is a whole mass of regulatory powers, with prescribed persons not defined and circumstances which the Secretary of State will determine later.

This clause was introduced to Parliament in the other place on Report, after midnight and with a 185-word introduction by the Minister. There was no debate on the subject and the technical consultation that went out really answered no questions at all. Theoretically, I believe in arbitration, but to set up a statutory process of compulsory arbitration without defining particularly what you are about is risky. I would much prefer to have seen this properly scoped and perhaps included in subsequent legislation, if there were some. What is this new body? Who will staff it? Where will it be based and what will its budget be? Quangos and their functions are never cheap.

Statutory arbitrators will be sent in at the request of unspecified third persons—in some circumstances, not even the two parties to the dispute. We do not really know who those third persons are yet, although the Government are asking who they might be. Will they be interested local people? The new body can charge fees. Well, any government body likes to charge fees and we can be sure that the fees will not be cheap—and it will probably expand.

I do not want to labour the issue but I did raise it in Committee. While I do not criticise my noble friend on the Front Bench—she has done an absolutely fantastic job on the Bill in my submission—it was in a large group so there was no real response on what it was all about. As I said, 185 words were spoken in the Commons, and there was no response.

What is the calculated impact on affordable home provision? What local knowledge will these statutory arbitrators require? What will be their qualifications? How will they relate to the existing inspectorate, which is supposed to resolve difficulties between local authorities and developers? Will their decisions be judicially reviewable? Any statutory body lets the lawyers loose.

If she can, I should like my noble friend to say at what stage those questions will be answered for Parliament, because I am concerned that, well-intentioned though this might be, we risk creating a statutory body that will run out of control, cost more and lead to more delay in the system rather than less. Will the public be able to make representations to these arbitrators? Will they meet in open session? If so, what role is there for the planning committee? Where do we go with appeal afterwards? We could have a three-stage process.

I beseech my noble friend and her colleagues to think about what this new statutory body might be. They might even know what it might be called.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord True, who asked a set of important questions. I shall not repeat them, and I am pleased that a large number of Members of the House are here to hear him ask them. This is an example of the creation of a bureaucracy that may not solve a significant set of problems. In other words, because there may have been some difficulties in a limited number of cases in some places, we may set up a large bureaucratic structure to solve them.

I have read the impact assessment and the Bill very carefully, but I am still at a loss to understand what problem the Government are trying to solve. It may in some cases speed up some Section 106 negotiations but, in the main, I am not sure that it will. It may create a set of unintended consequences. When I read line 1 of the impact assessment—

“The Government wishes to provide for someone to be appointed to help resolve, within a set timescale, outstanding issues about planning obligations relating to individual planning applications”—

I immediately wonder who the “someone” will be. How will you ensure that they do not have some kind of interest? How will you know that there is a firewall between that person and their conclusions? For example, the impact assessment does not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord True: what might the impact be on starter homes? That is a very important question, because the funding of starter homes comes from reductions in the amount of Section 106 money received by local authorities.

On page 167, at lines 10 to 12, the Bill states:

“The local planning authority must not refuse the application on a ground that relates to the appropriateness of the terms of the section 106 instrument”.

I understand that statement in one sense, but at the heart of our debate about starter homes is the fact that Section 106 provision will be reduced to help to provide the developer subsidy for those starter homes. There are major implications in this, and I see more potential problems over Section 106 negotiations. I am not convinced that setting up the kind of bureaucratic structure that the noble Lord, Lord True, described, will actually help us to solve that problem. It will be solved if local planning authorities are properly resourced, have the proper powers and there is a proper context within which they are to work to build the homes that the country needs.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I should repeat my declaration from last week that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, because this impacts directly on local government. I welcome Amendment 133B, which confirms that we will have the affirmative procedure so that we can at least talk about the proposals that the Government finally come up with.

I want to be really clear about two things. The first is that the purpose of these amendments is, ultimately, to ensure that we build more social homes for rent than we otherwise would because of the powers of housing associations, particularly in terms of borrowing. Secondly, although local authorities will not have as much control as they do now, nevertheless, there is nothing in the legislation as now proposed that will prevent officers or members of a council joining a housing association board if invited to do so directly in their own capacity. That is my understanding of what is proposed, but I am very keen that the Minister should make it absolutely clear when responding to this group of amendments.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Obviously, I welcome what my noble friend said: that there will be a good amount of time given to consider this rather new proposal. I understand the rationale in terms of the audit rules. However, I would like to make three points, one of which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has anticipated. It surely cannot be the case that a member of a local authority should be excluded by that from using his or her experience in the service of housing interests—although, clearly, under subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause they would not be able to exercise any voting right. Recent legislation dashed local authority members’ hopes when they were told that they were not allowed to have pensions any more because they were not employees of local authorities. In those circumstances, clearly they are not employees of the local authority. Therefore, I do not think that that should be used to exclude them from potential membership where that is judged useful by the housing association.

My second point is on the wording, which, again, is relatively new to all of us, and therefore I have not been able to take advice from my office, which I will when I have time. Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause states that appointing, in relation to an officer,

“includes nominating or otherwise influencing the selection of the officer”.

Local authorities that are responsible for housing individuals, and even those authorities that are not directly housing authorities, have a public responsibility to house effectively. In the course of that experience they will accumulate a great deal of knowledge about the local housing market, the capacity of individuals and, in some respects, the record of individuals. That wording—

“otherwise influencing the selection of the officer”—

could exclude the capacity of the local authority to offer advice on whether a person who has been put forward is an appropriate or effective person to carry out these very important functions.

That relates to my final point: accountability. A great deal in the Bill is about putting housing associations on one pedestal and local authorities and others on another. There has to be some recognition that the housing function is an important one for which local authorities have responsibility. I do not happen to think that putting councillors on boards is necessarily the best way of doing it. Indeed, I agreed to the removal of councillors from the board of our own major housing association. However, as we tease out what these proposals mean, particularly where there is a move from the local authority sector to the housing association sector, I hope we will not lose some thought as to the way in which relationships between housing associations and local authorities are sustained, and in which there is an element of mutual accountability between the two. Clearly, if this goes through, that may not be by appointment, but there must be some consideration of that point, in my submission.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I would like to be really clear about what is being said—in part, following what the noble Lord, Lord Porter, said a little while ago. I understand from what the Minister told us that there will be a further amendment at Third Reading on the matter of high-value homes. I would appreciate confirmation of that when she replies. Will the Government leave with local authorities enough money from the sale of higher-value homes to build replacement homes? That is what I heard the noble Lord, Lord Porter, say but that is not explicitly stated in the letter we received just before 3 o’clock this afternoon. I would just like to be really clear about that one-for-one replacement. One of our concerns in Committee was that there was to be a two-for-one replacement in London but not—in the Bill—a one-for-one replacement in the rest of England. I think the House would find it helpful to know exactly what the Government propose here.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly intervene as a member of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee. I will not follow my noble friend Lord Deben, who occasionally joins us for our deliberations on this Bill to launch an attack on local authorities. Perhaps he could bring a different 1990s LP next time he comes to us, as we have heard that little speech before.

I am very grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to the Secretary of State. They have listened—I want to address this in a positive way—and are seeking to deal with a very real problem within the context of a clear manifesto commitment. In Committee, we teased out significant issues that needed to be addressed. This is manifest evidence that the Government wish to address some of those problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put the worst construction on it and said that 51% or, in some cases, 100% of the relevant property might have to go. In all generosity, I do not think that is what my noble friend intends or is what she said. She said in her letter that she was “clear” that she wished to see,

“at least one new affordable home for each dwelling that is sold”.

I accept what she said in writing.

There will still be things that we have to consider as we go forward—for example, whether in some large boroughs the social housing in one ward could be more expensive than that in another ward not too far away, so a local element will be needed if we are to sustain mixed tenure and mixed communities, which is important. The drafting of the regulations is not a question on which to detain your Lordships today but we could look at the implications of higher value within local authority areas. However, I unequivocally welcome what my noble friend has laid before us and I know that many people in many parts of London—local authority leaders of all parties—also welcome it. I am very grateful to her.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for his contribution because he has clarified his position on the forced sale of high-value council homes, as well as for the distinction that he has drawn. It is particularly helpful and I hope the Minister will pay due attention to it.

The issue here was put very well by the noble Lord, Lord Horam. If there is a requirement on councils to sell off high-value homes, however they are defined—I hope the Minister even today might be in a position to define for us what a high-value home actually is—that should be for new social housing, not to fund the right to buy. I think I have interpreted accurately what the noble Lord said. I noted too the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best. He said that requiring councils to sell high-value housing is a bad idea because it cannot be righted by switching the burden on to housing associations. I hope I have cited both noble Lords correctly.

The broad thrust is the same: that it is one thing to sell high-value council homes to reinvest in other council properties, but quite another to use that money to fund the right to buy housing association properties. We have hit upon one of the key problems in the debate on this group of amendments—it has taken some time, but it is right that it has because the issues have now come out. This is not about vacant homes; it is about an assumption in government that there is such a thing as surplus council homes. I am afraid that I simply do not believe there are surplus homes, yet I have heard in a number of places the word “surfeit” being used. It is not the case that there is a surfeit or a surplus of homes. It is very important that the Minister does not confuse vacant homes with surplus homes, because local authorities, which have the knowledge of their areas, know whether a vacant home can be re-let.

I will be really clear so that there is no doubt in the Minister’s mind: for these Benches, the forced sale of high-value council homes, reducing the social housing stock as a consequence, is a red-line issue if it is simply to be used to fund the right to buy housing association homes. There has to be a coherent policy that ensures there are enough social rented homes for people in this country to live in. As things stand, the Government’s policy will reduce the number of rented social homes in the places they are needed and it will make things much worse for the 1.6 million people on social housing waiting lists. As we have heard, it will jeopardise new housebuilding because it will erode councils’ ability to borrow. As the Minister has heard from me on several occasions, because larger homes tend to be high-value homes, because they have more bedrooms, their sell-off may well take priority over the sell-off of other homes, so larger families will suffer as a consequence.

I know that the Minister is aware of the research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on council bungalow sales. It warned that although such homes are often suited to the elderly or those with special requirements, 15,300 council-owned bungalows could be sold off in England by 2021. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a hugely respected charity and its advice should be taken very seriously. Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s response to that research is? These things really do matter, as does raising the cap for local authorities on housing investment. Again, I do not hear Ministers talking much about this, but it has been a running proposal in your Lordships’ House for several years that that cap should be raised.

The demand is there in the social rented sector for the higher-value properties that the Government will require to be sold whether there is need for them, or whether they are actually vacant. Surely it is for local government to assess its local market needs and the need for social rented housing in its areas. Surely, its position should be protected if it knows that a vacant home is required by somebody on a housing list. Finally, what do the Government think about the overall impact on local government finances? I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She is absolutely correct on the capacity of local government actually to fund what some on the other side believe local government is capable of funding.

I repeat: this is, for these Benches, a red-line issue. I hope very much that the Government will think again and very quickly.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He knows how greatly I respect him and it was an honour to call him my noble friend for five years. But when he talks of a red line, with all the authority of a party with eight colleagues in the other place, is he telling this House that those Benches plan to deploy 100 votes here to frustrate the will of the other place? I suggest to your Lordships that that smacks rather of anti-manifesto fundamentalism.

[Lord Shipley]

I will clarify that matter. I agree entirely that it would have been much better had the Bill started in the House of Lords; then, some of these issues could perhaps have been put right before it reached the other place. That said, the Bill is here and we have a requirement to comment on it, amend it and vote on it. I have just said that our view on these Benches is that this is, for us, a red-line issue.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True and support the four amendments in this group.

The report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, published on 18 January, refers to Clause 1 being,

“a novel provision in the context of town and country planning”.

“Novel” might mean “new”, but it might also mean, “very different and therefore very important”; I think that it is meant to be the latter. It is novel and, as a consequence, it must be properly understood. A centralised form of front-line decision making is being introduced at the expense of localism, as the Select Committee has made clear. I do not find that good. In particular, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that there would be no appeals system other than judicial review to a decision taken by the Planning Inspectorate. In the context of democratic control of decision making, simply to pass a decision without the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate is not right.

I was then particularly concerned by paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report, which is important and says:

“We have consistently expressed the view that executive assurances about how statutory powers will be exercised are no firm basis on which to legislate. Constitutionally speaking, they are no proper substitute for clarity in the statutory provision”.

The Select Committee concludes:

“In our view, the Government’s own policy intention of designation under clause 1 only in exceptional cases”—

as Ministers have been making clear—

“should be made clear on the face of the bill. The House may also wish to consider whether the criteria and procedures for making or revoking a designation should be set out in secondary legislation”.

I think I have concluded that in both cases they should and I very much hope that shortly we will hear confirmation that the Minister at least will look at this question again. The Government’s aim should be never to use their powers.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This is a helpful debate. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that this is not a time for political tactics. That is because it is a time to help those most in need.

Last week the Deputy Prime Minister stated that as we have to tighten our belts and,

“as we have to make more savings as a country … you start at the top and work your way down, not the other way round”.

I agree with him that those who are poor should be protected. The reason I give my full support to the noble Lord, Lord Best, is that his amendment does that: it protects the poor far better than the Bill does.

We are about to enter the third year of a council tax freeze for most councils, amounting to a 9% reduction in real terms over that period. The Government have paid more than £2 billion to keep council tax bills down. Rightly, this has been widely welcomed by council tax payers—but it is causing higher cuts now because the sums granted to local councils this year and next are for one year only. The baseline is not built up. Crucially, this has meant that those with high incomes, living in a high-band property, have benefited in cash terms much more than others.

Today, around 750,000 people work but get council tax benefit. They get it because their income is low. However, in future a very large number of them could have to pay between £3 and £5 a week because of benefit loss, while higher earners will have no increase at all. As proposed, this will be a regressive step on the working-age poor and it has to be wrong. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, provides a solution.

We have heard that the £100 million transitional grant is welcome, but it is also the case that the 8.5% cap is underfunded for some councils, which will have to make other cuts to deliver it—and it is only one-year money. We have heard about empty and second homes and that the Government have argued that a 100% levy on empty and second homes could meet the 10% cut they have imposed—except that, with rising demand, it is not a 10% cut but nearer 12.5%. The truth is that whereas some councils can make up the difference on empty and second homes, many councils simply do not have enough empty and second homes to make up the loss, even if they do charge 100%.

The evidence collected by the Local Government Association demonstrates this. More than 100 councils are now in this position and the vast majority of schemes propose to introduce a minimum payment for working-age claimants. Half propose to set the minimum payment at 20% or more, about another quarter propose to set it between 10% and 20%, and the £100 million announced yesterday will make little practical difference because of rising demand.

A deliverable, fair solution is needed which can be introduced with minimum loss to any individual. That solution is to give councils the option to reduce the single-person discount from 25% to 20% while maintaining a pensioner’s current entitlement. It costs the Government nothing. It costs single people very little: just £1 per week for those in bands A and B and just over £2 per week for those in the top two bands. Given the council tax freeze over the past three years, for most of these people these sums seem modest.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raised an issue of principle about localism. Despite ostensibly being localist—having passed the Localism Act and decided that council tax benefit would not be part of universal credit but would be devolved to councils—surely it should follow that policy on exemptions to discounts should be localised too. Too often the Government seem to want to prescribe and proscribe when localism means giving away power and responsibility. We are ending up with part localism, whereby the Government choose some bits that they want to regulate but not others and leave crucial issues unresolved, such as a definition of “vulnerability”.

We have heard that local government is united: all parties on the Local Government Association have signed up to this amendment. The chair of the Local Government Association, Sir Merrick Cockell, said in June:

“The poorest regions and the most vulnerable people will be hardest hit by this cut unless the Government offers councils more flexibility over all forms of council tax discount. It is the only way that councils can ensure that the greatly reduced funding for council tax benefit is targeted at the local people who need it most”.

Would single parents be better off or worse off under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best? They would be better off. Seventy per cent of lone parents are in the bottom two income deciles. They could lose a little from the reduction in the discount to 20% but they would lose far more if they have to pay 20% of the overall charge, albeit 8.5% in year one.

There will be a clear impact on child poverty. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in July, the Minister said:

“Local authorities should design localised council tax schemes in a way that best suits local circumstances and consideration should be given to child poverty in the local area”.

I agree entirely with the Minister that council tax schemes should be designed in a way that best suits local circumstances, but it begs the question of how the impact on child poverty should be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has produced the answer. His amendment would require a modest reduction in the single person’s discount for non-pensioners and would then prevent a further, larger burden being placed on the poor.

My final point relates to income tax gain and council tax loss. The Government have done excellent work in removing low-income earners from income tax by raising the threshold before tax needs to be paid, and another tranche of this will occur in April next year. I am still puzzled as to why they are proposing that some of the very same low earners should have to pay more council tax as a consequence of the Bill. From the perspective of the recipient, it amounts to giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

I hope the amendment will pass. It is fair, deliverable and prevents the introduction of a regressive tax. It reflects the experience from the poll tax days. As I have said, all parties on the LGA are signed up to this amendment and I hope that all in your Lordships’ House will be signed up to it too.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I am not a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and after the remarks that I am about to make, I am unlikely to be invited to become one because I intend to challenge the unanimity that we have had so far on the amendment.

I pay tribute to the Local Government Association for the work that it has done on the Bill. On this issue, however, I think that it is wrong. I also disagree with a considerable number of my fellow council leaders, including Conservative council leaders, who see this proposal as a kind of 5th Cavalry which is coming over the hill to deal with a problem that, as I have repeatedly said in the House from Second Reading onwards, should not have arisen in the first place. I have lately been described by people inside the Government—or my authority has been described—as a “serial offender”, so I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be surprised to hear me speaking in this way. I am part of the serial offences, but I also think that, in policy terms, the construction of this Bill is unwise

My old grandmother always told me that two wrongs, as noble Lords know, do not make a right. What is proposed here is effectively a new tax—a broadening of the tax base and an increase in council tax. The amendment proposes that to address a problem which should be addressed, we should challenge the central structure of the council tax as it was first conceived. I can go down memory lane as well, because I was deputy head of the policy unit in No. 10 when John Major formed his Government. At that time, one of the things that we had to do was wrestle with the legacy of the community charge, the poll tax. We had another legacy in our minds at that time—the rates. I have not heard the word “rates” mentioned in this debate but the existence of the rates was thought by many to be a profound injustice. That is how the Government of Margaret Thatcher got into conceiving the solution of the community charge.

One of the central principles agreed across the political spectrum when council tax was created was that the perceived injustice in the rates—that everyone paid the same; that single persons had to pay the same as everyone else—should be addressed. Masquerading under the guise of flexibility, this proposal detracts from that central principle. There is nothing in the amendment about 20% or saying that some can do it, or whatever. As Amendment 98B is written, it is a licence to tax. It is a licence for any local authority. My noble friend Lord Tope said that it is an opening shot in a negotiation. If my noble friends on the Lib Dem Back Benches want to propose a further property tax—in effect, an increase in council tax for every person and household in the country—then, given the time interval in the transitional arrangements, we can have that debate inside the coalition and inside the country. However, I do not know of any public debate about the principle of removing the single-person discount.

It was right that the anomaly in the rates should have been addressed, and addressed well, in the council tax, and I would defend the principle—and it should be defended centrally—that was established in 1992. If we pass the amendment, it will mean a broadening of the tax base. We have heard that this tax is easy to collect. My goodness, yes, of course it is—and I am afraid that some local authorities will think they are quids in. The figures from my finance director show that if we were allowed to get rid of the discount in my local authority, we could cash in £8.5 million. I would not do it but, given the powers in this amendment, will every local authority say, “No, we will restrain ourselves. We will take only the little bit needed to offset the other elements in the Bill that the Government have brought forward”? No, single-person households across the country could suddenly find themselves facing an increase in council tax which no party ever put to them in a manifesto, and no party ever put to them as a point of principle. Perhaps it is because I was involved in the original design of council tax that I do not think we can resile from this principle so lightly.

I do not wish to trespass too much on the time of noble Lords but I am the first person to put the opposing case in reply to five other noble Lords. There has been talk about helping the poor but, as I understand it, the single-person discount goes primarily to low-band households, those in bands A to D. From memory, I think that the percentage might be as high as 90%. I have no doubt that the Minister has the figures. It is not a question of the Rolls-Royce classes suddenly having to stump up an extra bob; council tax increases will be experienced by many. If the discount was abolished in band D in my own authority, it would cost those who are affected £6.40 a week. We are a high-tax authority because we are poorly funded centrally. Even at 20%, however, it would be £1 a week. That is not a negligible sum. Even in my leafy authority, of the 23,000-plus people who would lose the discount as the amendment threatens, 14,000 live in households in bands A to D—and we are rather heavy on higher band households. I would counsel against the easy view that adopting this amendment would help the poor. We might find instead that it hits them.

I may be wrong or I may be right, but taking away a central core of the structure of council tax is a major switch in tax policy. In effect, it would represent a return to the old rates system without public debate. For my part, I could not support that principle without much further and deeper debate than the remaining stages of the Bill will allow.

Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Monday 23rd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

I shall follow on from the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the rights of voluntary and community bodies not just to nominate assets for listing but to convert themselves into a community interest group. My understanding of the regulations—the Minister explained this very clearly—is that voluntary and community bodies can nominate assets for listing and that those bodies will include parish councils and can include unincorporated local organisations with at least 21 individual members who are on the local electoral register.

The regulations require a community interest group which can bid to be a charity, a company limited by guarantee that does not distribute profits, an industrial and provident society or a community interest company. Voluntary community groups are going to have to convert themselves into community interest groups to bid and sometimes the timescale could be very tight. I wonder what help the Government plan to give, or to advise local authorities to give, to enable the regulations and the principles behind the Localism Act to happen reasonably easily and to make it more straightforward than it otherwise would be for a voluntary or community group to bid successfully and to manage the outcome of that successful bid.

I noticed in the regulations that it is estimated that some 700 assets will be listed each year and that 94 assets may be bid for each year. It is not clear where those numbers came from, but they clearly have some credibility. I understand that where there is a parish council, there is a structure in place. My concern is where there is not a parish council or where the body that wants to bid is not the parish council but is another voluntary or community group. How do we make sure that people are enabled to make a success of this legislation when there is an extra hurdle from nominating a building or a piece of land to an asset register to the point where that group can then take over the running of that building?

[Lord True]

My Lords, my noble friend anticipates one of the things that I was going to ask in relation to non-parished areas. I was not intending to intervene. I endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Gardiner and other colleagues. I welcome the efforts that my noble friend Lady Hanham has made to reduce some of the worst threats, as some of us perceived them in the debates on the Localism Bill. The stripping down of the proposal to the essentials, at least in terms of those assets to which it might apply, is very welcome. None the less, declaring an interest as leader of a local authority, in some circumstances, local authorities could find themselves as piggy in the middle in operating this process with a community group on one side and the landowner on the other. We simply do not know how onerous these duties are going to be. Some local authorities find it hard to determine planning applications in eight weeks. There are figures of eight weeks and six weeks in here.

We are adjured to make further major savings in local government spending—we are debating this on the Local Government Finance Bill—to which I have no objection, but as we go forward I hope my noble friend will give a firm assurance that she will be careful of the burdens that are imposed on local authorities in administering the system because the paradox we are living with is that in the planning system we have had a massive simplification, in theory, of the planning system nationwide but on the other hand we are creating extraordinarily complex structures, such as some of those coming out of the Localism Act. In these quite complex regulations, we are having regulations to decomplicate them and take some of the other things out. This world will take a little time to settle down. I think we will all try to make it work. Localism is important, and we do want to protect assets of local importance, but I hope that my noble friend will resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, to tighten up even further the requirements on local authorities to respond.

One has to live with the art of the possible. Local authorities will, within the resources available, try to make this work, but in some circumstances, all the appeals systems, the registers and all the things that have to be done will take time and it may even require the recruiting of new local authority staff in some areas where this thing takes off. With that rider, I associate myself with the remarks of other noble Lords and thank my noble friend for the time and attention she has given to avoiding some of the potential abuses of the system as originally designed.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall speak specifically to Amendment 148ADBA because it is another aspect of the problem that we have identified about parish councils and the area in which they can sit in relation to a neighbourhood plan. This amendment would remove the restriction on a parish council being part of a neighbourhood area where the rest of that neighbourhood area is unparished.

Parish councils in urban areas have existed since local government reorganisation in the early 1970s, and they can lie within wards of a local authority but may not cover the whole of that ward. As it stands, the Bill prevents such a parished area working with the unparished area when it wants to, to produce a single neighbourhood plan. This amendment simply solves that problem. However, there is a better solution, which is to turn the unparished areas with neighbourhood forums into parish councils. That would give a democratic legitimacy to neighbourhood planning which is then based on the ballot box.

The solution to this problem lies in the public services White Paper published last week. Within that, there are a set of proposals in relation to the creation of neighbourhood councils in urban areas. I noted what my noble friend the Minister said about unparished neighbourhood forums being a pragmatic solution. The difficulty is that I do not think that pragmatism goes far enough. There has to be a democratic legitimacy to neighbourhood planning, which is based on “one person, one vote” and the right to express that view.

A referendum will not be sufficient to do that because the people helping to make decisions should have a democratic base. The solution to that problem lies within the public services White Paper. It would be enormously helpful if in the next few months the aims of the Government in relation to that White Paper and neighbourhood councils could be brought together with this Bill to produce an outcome which enables unparished urban areas to have a parish council structure.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. They are all deigned to build greater flexibility into the Bill and make it operate more in line with the real meaning of localism as I see it and with the opinions of local people, particularly in urban areas. New Section 61G(1)(a), to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by Schedule 9, allows an authority to designate a neighbourhood area only where a would-be neighbourhood forum or parish council has asked for it. That is cumbersome and restrictive.

My Amendment 148ADA would allow a local authority simply to ask local people what they consider their neighbourhood areas to be and to designate them themselves. To quote the Bill, why do they need to wait for a,

“body which is … capable of being, designated as a neighbourhood forum”,

to ask for it? Surely a local authority can do that.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

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

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

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

[Lord True]

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

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord True and Lord Shipley

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important that we understand the important role that ITAs and PTEs have in those metropolitan areas. I come from one of those areas. We have always had joint board arrangements, of which fire and rescue has been one, and there have been others. The ITA, and the PTE as part of the ITA, needs to have similar powers at least to fire and rescue authorities, although it is better to have a complete power of general competence. Perhaps I may give an example. The Government are keen to have smart-card operations across the country by 2014. That is being led by PTEs in the areas where PTEs have been directly financed. However, three councils—Nottingham, Leicester and Bristol—do not have PTEs, although they are financed for smart-card ticketing and supported by the PTEs from those other urban areas. Unless the Bill is amended those PTEs will not have a power of general competence, whereas the other areas will, as will those three councils. I think that there will be some complications in procurement policy unless that issue is addressed. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on the situation because, as things stand, there appears to be an anomaly.

[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.