Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Shipley

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I agree that Amendments 18 and 25 are important, although the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, largely related to Amendment 25, and perhaps to some others that we will deal with later, on the subject of pre-commencement conditions. Those comments were very similar to ones that I recall him making in Committee. I repeat what I said on that occasion, which is that I find the case exaggerated. I do not find the evidence base that the Government came up with for the problems requiring this solution to be as great as they imagine it to be, and I have heard nothing further to convince me that that is the case.

Clause 13 is simply one clause, but almost a third of the amendments tabled to date relate to it. Twenty-four amendments to Clause 13 have been tabled by noble Lords, and that suggests to me that there is something structurally wrong with it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel that there is a great deal of merit in Amendments 18 and 25.

In response to another comment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would just say that I do not think that a local planning authority should have to negotiate a written agreement with a developer on a matter which is in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework. It seems that there is a basic principle there that the Government should surely support, and it is spelled out in Amendment 18. I think that a local planning authority should have the right to impose a condition if it is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, I hope very much that, when he replies, the Minister will tell us that he agrees with the wording of the amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who may have endeared himself to me by saying that I could be trusted above every other noble Lord in the Chamber. However, I am not sure what the reaction of other noble Lords might have been to that. He also implied that I might not be in government for ever. That is a question which my wife sometimes asks me. I first joined the Government in 1979 and have left it four times, each time thinking it was the last time but each time, back I come. If the noble Lord, when he was a Minister in the DCLG, was given a one-line zinger to deal with any amendments, he was more fortunate than I am this afternoon.

Perhaps I may try to address some of the issues, which to some extent go broader than Amendments 18 and 25. First, I reassure noble Lords that this clause will not stop local authorities seeking to impose planning conditions that address any specific issue—the natural environment, heritage, archaeology or flood mitigation—where those conditions meet the policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. Those protections remain in place and changes to the Bill are not needed to maintain this position.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Shipley

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, for tabling their amendments to Clause 14. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made it clear that his amendment was probing. Before I move on to discuss these and the government amendments to this clause, it may be helpful if I begin with a brief description of Clauses 14 to 26, which introduce the new temporary possession power.

All acquiring authorities may need to enter and use land for a temporary period. For example, they may require land to store materials for a scheme or to provide access to a construction site, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. The problem is that, currently, only certain acquiring authorities have temporary possession powers—for example, under special Acts which are needed for very large schemes such as the Crossrail Act 2008. Crucially, compulsory purchase orders cannot authorise temporary possession. There is no good reason for this difference, and it is unfair to those who do not have the powers. Clauses 14 to 26 seek to create a level playing field by giving all acquiring authorities the same power to take temporary possession of land. It may also be in the interests of those on the receiving end of a CPO to have the possibility of being deprived of their land temporarily rather than permanently.

In giving acquiring authorities this power, we shall ensure that those whose land is taken are fairly compensated and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect their interests. That is set out in Clause 19. For example, temporary possession will have to be authorised in the same way as compulsory acquisition. Also, in certain circumstances, owners and occupiers will be able to require the acquiring authority to acquire the land permanently instead of occupying it on a temporary basis, if that is what they want.

Government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74 with Amendments 105 and 106 and amendments to other clauses, which I shall deal with later, remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be linked directly to a scheme for the acquisition of other land either by compulsion or agreement. Decoupling is the word that the professionals have been using. The reason for this change is that there may be situations where an acquiring authority needs to take only temporary possession of land. For example, an acquiring authority may need temporary possession of land for a contractor’s compound when they have been able to buy all the land needed for their scheme by agreement, or they may need access to land temporarily to maintain a highway. That is the impact of some of our amendments.

Government Amendments 105 and 106 are consequential on Amendment 66; they simply remove definitions of terms that are no longer required. Non-government Amendments 65, 68 and 72, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also seek to remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be directly linked to a compulsory acquisition scheme. I hope, therefore, that he will agree they are unnecessary in the light of the Government’s amendments.

On Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, I agree with the noble Lord that we need to ensure that the interests of leaseholders are adequately protected in introducing this new power. However, I believe that that amendment is not needed, because we have already built in a safeguard which would deliver the same outcome that is requested, but in a more flexible way.

Amendment 69 would restrict the temporary possession power so that it could never be used when a leasehold interest would have less than a year to run after the land was handed back, even if that was the preference of the leaseholder, the freeholder and the acquiring authority. It sounds counterintuitive to prohibit that. The effect of this amendment would be that, if the land was essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority would instead be driven to exercising the more draconian power of compulsory acquisition of the land permanently. However, as I have said, we have already built in a safeguard for leaseholders, which I believe will achieve the outcome that noble Lords are seeking. The safeguard is in Clause 17(3), which allows leaseholders to serve a counternotice preventing the acquiring authority taking temporary possession of the land. On receipt of the counternotice, if the land is essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority can proceed as if the land were subject to compulsory acquisition and take the land permanently. In these circumstances, the leaseholder would, of course, be compensated for both the value of his lease and losses caused by reason of being disturbed from possession of the land taken. I believe this is a neater solution, which gives leaseholders the flexibility to decide what is right for them.

Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to clarify what will happen when a tenant’s land is subject to compulsory purchase. As government Amendment 103 seeks to do the same thing—although our approach is different—I will speak to both amendments together. Government Amendment 103 provides that the terms and obligations under the tenancy, with the exception of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy, will be disapplied to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them. Any expenditure which a leaseholder incurs as a result of the temporary possession would be claimed back from the acquiring authority. The noble Lord’s amendment, in contrast, provides that all the terms and obligations are unenforceable for the period of temporary possession.

The reason we have disapplied the terms and obligations only to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them is that there may be circumstances in which only a small part of land subject to a lease is also subject to temporary possession. In these situations, there may be no easy way in which to separate out the terms that relate to the land subject to temporary possession from terms that relate to the remainder of the land.

The second point of difference is the exclusion of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy. We have done this because, again, where only a small part of a tenant’s land is required, making these terms unenforceable could result in a tenant having to pay an uncertain portion of the rent for the land not subject to temporary possession. The loss that would be compensated is not the rent payable for the existing lease, but any rent payable for alternative premises, as that is the loss that has been caused. Under the Government’s amendment, responsibility for paying the rent for the land under temporary possession remains with the tenant. However, the tenant will be entitled to claim compensation from the acquiring authority in relation to any expenditure which a leaseholder reasonably incurs as a result of the temporary possession.

The other point of difference with the noble Lord’s amendment is to do with proposed subsections (4) to (6), which make provision with regards to those who have protected tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Occupiers with such a protected tenancy have a right to apply for the grant of a new tenancy, provided they remain in occupation. However, if their land is subject to temporary possession they will no longer be in occupation and will lose this right. Government Amendment 103 and non-government Amendment 73 both seek to preserve this right to renew the tenancy. However, in doing so, the government amendment imposes a requirement for the tenant to confirm in writing to both the landlord and the acquiring authority that they intend to resume occupation after temporary possession. I think it is clear that both amendments are after the same thing: greater clarity for tenants and landlords as to what happens during the temporary possession period, including the treatment of rent.

Finally, in this group, I will respond to Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The noble Lord made a very valid point, which I entirely agree with, that where the Government intend to provide guidance on the use of a new power, that guidance should be available by the time the provisions come into force. That is, of course, the Government’s intention. The particular element of the temporary possession provisions that the noble Lord has identified is in Clause 15(3)(a), which will allow both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers to be obtained concurrently for the same piece of land.

Although this so-called doubling-up of temporary and permanent powers can be authorised, it will not give acquiring authorities carte blanche to double up in all cases. It would not be fair to claimants if there was not a very good reason for an acquiring authority to make an order which included this doubling-up. It would not be wise to anticipate precisely what might be in the guidance at this point, but as I have just said, there would be a high bar to justify doubling-up. The most likely circumstances would be linear transport projects where the final design is not complete by the time compulsory powers are obtained. We know of a handful of orders in the last dozen years where this has been authorised, such as the Docklands Light Railway and the Nottingham tramway.

As for compulsory acquisitions, each case would be considered on its individual merits at a public inquiry before an inspector, and considered by the relevant Secretary of State, before a decision was made whether doubling-up was justified in the public interest.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, with a firm undertaking that the Government will be seeking views on the draft guidance and will publish it before these provisions come into force. I apologise to the Committee for a somewhat lengthy oration on these amendments, but there are quite a few of them. When the time comes, I will move government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 103, 105 and 106. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 65 and for noble Lords not to press Amendments 68, 69, 72, 73 and 75.

[Lord Shipley]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I draw his attention to two facts. First, the Government have brought 34 amendments for consideration this afternoon, this Bill having passed in the other place. Secondly, some of them were tabled quite late, and after I tabled my amendment. I understand the need for all this to be brought together for Report, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we now move to the second group of amendments on temporary possession. Clause 15 deals with the procedure for authorising temporary possession of land, requiring it to be authorised by the type of authorising instrument that would be required for the permanent acquisition of land—for example, a compulsory purchase order.

Government Amendments 76 to 79 remove redundant wording in Clause 15(2) as a consequence of government Amendment 66 to Clause 14(1). Government Amendments 80 to 82 amend Clause 15(3) to clarify that the same land may be subject to both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers concurrently. We debated the need for guidance relating to the clause a moment ago on Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, so I shall not repeat what I said about that. Government Amendments 83 to 85 and 87—the last also, happily, endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—all remove redundant provisions in the context of the previous amendments. For example, Amendment 87 refers to “relevant land”: this is no longer needed because the concept of relevant land is removed by Amendment 66. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name, and I want to ask the Minister a question. Clause 15 sets out the procedures for authorising temporary possession. It is not clear from the clause whether it is intended that there be a time limit for the life of a temporary power—for instance, three years for service of a notice post the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. Do the three-year and five-year standards for compulsory purchase orders in statutory instruments apply, and does the power apply to post-construction maintenance during a defect period?

The Government’s amendments to remove superfluous words are helpful. I am not sure whether Amendment 87, which deletes subsection (7), is right—I am having second thoughts about it. I think it is right, but as the relevant land is the land required for the scheme, it seems appropriate to make it clear that temporary possession can be taken after action to secure the land required permanently. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I may need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the specific issue he has raised on Amendment 87 and subsection (7) relating to relevant land. As I said, this is no longer needed, because the concept of relevant land has been removed by Amendment 66, with which we have just dealt. However, I will make some inquiries following his representations.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed in Amendment 86 that Clause 15(6) should be omitted. This is intended to be helpful clarification. It confirms that the authorising instrument—for example, a CPO—does not need to include the dates for any particular period of temporary possession. It would be difficult for an acquiring authority to do that, because it would not know the date of the confirmation at that stage. The cross-reference to Clause 16 points users to the provisions which specify the dates of temporary possession. The Government believe that there is no need for users of this legislation to be deprived of this clarification. He also asked a question about whether CPO powers would expire after a certain period. Again, I will write to him about this when I have made some inquiries. In the meantime, I hope that he will not move his Amendment 86.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94 in my name. These five amendments relate to Clause 17, which makes provision for a person affected by temporary possession to serve a counternotice to limit the total period which the temporary possession can last to 12 months in the case of a dwelling and six years in any other case. Leaseholders can also serve a counternotice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession. Having received the counternotice the acquiring authority must decide whether to accept it, withdraw the notice or proceed to take the land permanently.

As drafted, Clause 17 seems unnecessarily complex. The hope is that the Government might be able to simplify it without losing any of its statutory force. Regarding Amendment 89, Clause 17 applies wherever an acquiring authority gives notice of intended entry on to land for a temporary period to a person who is either the freeholder of the land affected or a leasehold owner. The clauses that follow seem to have a different counternotice procedure, depending on whether it is a freeholder or a leaseholder. So in connection with Amendment 89, is there a need to distinguish between leaseholders and freeholders? This amendment and the consequential amendments seek to avoid that and therefore to simplify the clause.

Amendment 91 refers to Clause 17(3), which allows a leaseholder to give the acquiring authority a counternotice to prevent it taking temporary possession of the land. It appears that this right is not available to freeholders, who can serve only a counternotice limiting the period of temporary possession. Surely, this right should be available to freeholders. This amendment therefore seeks to clarify the matter by stating:

“The owner may give the acquiring authority a counter-notice which provides that the authority may not take temporary possession of the owner’s interest”.


We then have consequential Amendments 92, 93 and 94. Clause 17(10) states that nothing in that clause,

“prevents an acquiring authority acquiring land compulsorily after accepting a counter-notice or withdrawing a notice of intended entry”.

My question is: should a permanent acquisition be available for temporary land unless a counternotice has been served requiring a permanent rather than temporary acquisition? Clause 17(8) is relevant in this respect. Amendment 94 would therefore leave out lines 38 to 40 on page 15. The concern is that landowners could potentially face a period of six years of temporary possession with the acquiring authority then deciding to acquire the land permanently. In the interests of fairness, the land should surely have been acquired permanently in the beginning. Scheme promoters should know how they wish to use the land and whether it needs to be permanently acquired from the outset.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling his Amendment 88. I appreciate that his aim in doing so was to make things clearer, an ambition which I fully support. However, on this occasion I do not think that an amendment is necessary because subsection (7) provides that Clause 16 must be complied with,

“in relation to each subsequent period of temporary possession”.

That makes it clear that acquiring authorities can serve more than one notice. Having said that, this is the sort of thing that could usefully be covered in guidance. We will update our compulsory purchase guidance in light of the reforms in the Bill, and in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask for this matter to be looked at again.

Amendments 89 and 91 to 93 deal with the counternotice provisions in Clause 17. These provisions are an improvement on the current temporary possession regimes, which have no counternotice procedure in them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments. No one would be keener than I to simplify all this, if it were possible so to do. I doubt whether it would be realistic wholly to redraft this clause between now and Report but I endorse his sense of direction. He is quite right to say that there is a difference between the treatment of leaseholders and that of freeholders. This is because the Government believe that there could be a greater impact on leaseholders than freeholders when their land is subject to temporary possession, as the leaseholder may be left with a useless lease at the end of the temporary possession period—for example, when there is only a short period left to run on the lease. We considered this in debate on Amendment 69.

Clause 17(3) affords leaseholders additional protections in these circumstances by giving them the option to serve a counternotice, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, providing that an acquiring authority cannot take temporary possession of their land at all. However, no such issues arise for freeholders. The justification for the temporary possession of the land will have been carefully considered on its individual merits at a public local inquiry before an independent inspector and confirmed only where it is in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we have moved on to the no-scheme principle. The problem with this principle is that since it was first established it has been interpreted in a number of complex and often contradictory ways. Clause 27 is intended to clarify the position. It creates a statutory no-scheme principle and sets out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world. It also extends the definition of the scheme to include a relevant transport project in circumstances where land acquired in the vicinity for a regeneration or redevelopment scheme is facilitated or made possible by that project. We are extending the scheme because we want to ensure that an acquiring authority should not pay more for the land it is acquiring by reason of its own or someone else’s public investment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for explaining the need for Amendment 107. The Committee will have observed that it is similar to government Amendment 108, so I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. It is entirely correct that increases, as well as decreases, in the value of the land caused by the prospect of the scheme should be disregarded.

Amendment 109 was also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He argues that the words “in particular” should be omitted from the introduction to the rules defining the no-scheme world as they imply that some other rules might also be in play. He argues that the rules set out in new Section 6A should be an exclusive list. The Government’s expectation is that in the vast majority of cases the application of the rules as set out will be sufficient to establish the no-scheme world. There may, however, be rare cases in unforeseen circumstances where the Upper Tribunal considers that the application of the rules alone would not give a fair result. Retaining the phrase “in particular” gives the tribunal sufficient flexibility in these rare cases to fall back on the underlying no-scheme principle set out in new Section 6A(2) and its own common sense to arrive at a fair outcome. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about the need for clarity, the Government’s view is that the Upper Tribunal should retain this flexibility in order to reach a fair outcome in such unforeseen circumstances.

With Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and government Amendment 112 we now move to consideration of the rules themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, argues that Rule 4 is unnecessary and should be omitted. The Government’s view is that it remains necessary in order to complement Rule 3. Rule 3 assumes that there is no prospect of the same scheme or any other project to meet the same or substantially the same need as the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Rule 4 assumes that there is no prospect of any other scheme taking place on the land concerned. As currently drafted, this is too wide, so Amendment 112 restricts Rule 4 to disregarding only those schemes that could be undertaken only by the exercise of statutory functions or compulsory purchase powers. This means that the prospect of schemes brought forward by the private sector would still be considered as part of the no-scheme world. This is a fine point of valuation practice. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I think that the Government should further consider this issue very carefully with the expert practitioners who may conceivably have been briefing the noble Lord to find a solution.

Amendments 116, 117 and 118 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. New Section 6D(6) specifies that when the scheme to be disregarded under Rule 3 is a highway scheme, the reference to “any other project” includes another highway scheme to meet the same need as the actual scheme. This provision reflects the planning assumption in Section 14(5)(d) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It is important that the assumptions for the no-scheme world and the planning assumptions that should be applied in that no-scheme world should be consistent. The current Section 14 was substituted by the Localism Act 2011. A similar provision was added to the original version of Section 14 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The noble Lord put forward a powerful case that this clarification could apply equally to other transport projects. If it did, Section 14 would also need to be amended to keep the two sets of assumptions in step. I think that this is another issue which the Government should reflect on with expert practitioners.

Turning to the definition of the scheme that must be disregarded before compensation may be assessed, government Amendments 113, 114 and 115 make some small adjustments in the context of the extension of the scheme to relevant transport projects. These have arisen from discussions between the Government and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, which have only recently been concluded. I am very happy to give details if noble Lords would like them, but as they are relatively small adjustments, I propose to skip that part of the text.

I now return to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Amendment 119 seeks to clarify new Section 6E(3) which disapplies Section 6E for land bought after a relevant transport project was announced but before this Bill was published. If such land were to be included in a redevelopment or regeneration project in the vicinity of that relevant transport project, it would be valued as if the relevant transport project was not part of the scheme to be disregarded.

The noble Lord’s amendment is much more specific than the Bill as currently drafted. The Government’s view is that such precision may not be necessary. The provision refers to an event that has already happened, and it is quite possible that a project may have been announced in some other way than that specified by the announcement. If so, it would be unfair to restrict this provision because the announcement did not fit within the somewhat narrow definition proposed.

However, having said that, it might be possible to clarify, perhaps in guidance, exactly what is meant by an announcement. That is certainly something that I would like to reflect on. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw Amendment 107.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107. I look forward to reading carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said, with a view to potentially coming back to this on Report.

Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Shipley

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Hansard report of what the noble Lord just said should be sent to the members of every overview and scrutiny committee throughout the country in order to get an insight into how these committees can effectively further local democracy.

I will deal with some of the questions that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. First, yes, the template that we are setting out today will apply not just to the authorities already up and running but to all combined authorities, whether or not they have a mayor—so existing and future.

The noble Lord then asked about risk. The 2016 Act sets out the requirement to establish an audit committee and gives these committees the power to review and scrutinise the authority’s financial affairs, including the,

“risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements”.

He asked whether we would monitor the appointment of the independent members to make sure that they were genuinely independent. Yes, we will. As for times, these are maximum times, and I may be able to say a little more about that in a moment.

The noble Lord also mentioned the absence of a governance framework. The order provides the broad legislative framework, while the guidance, which the Centre for Public Scrutiny is preparing, will help each combined authority to develop its detailed framework and operational arrangements for scrutiny. Officials worked with both the NAO and the centre in the development of this legislation, and their proposals have largely been included. We will work closely with the CfPS on the guidance, which it is going to publish shortly.

On access to information and the ability to summon, the overview and scrutiny committee has access to information powers, including the power to require the mayor, officers and members of the combined authority to come before the committee and answer questions and give evidence. The combined authority will establish an O&S committee and the order requires that the majority of the members of that committee must be constituent councillors. It is for the combined authority to determine the size of the committee, taking into account the political balance requirement. It will be serviced by officers of the combined authority, who will indeed need to have the necessary resources to make sure that it can discharge its duties.

As to whether decisions will open to the public, the minutes of the committees are public, except that personal and confidential information, as defined in the order, will remain unavailable to the public.

We have dealt with the issue of holding the mayoral elections on the same day as a general election. There may be some other questions that the noble Lord asked which I have not answered, in which case I will write to him. He can get up and ask me again, but the chances are that I will still say, “I will write to the noble Lord”.

[Lord Shipley]

May I just clarify the Minister’s very helpful comment on officers of the combined authority attending overview and scrutiny meetings? The officers of a combined authority will administer the work of the overview and scrutiny committee. The Minister may prefer to write on this, but can they be the same officers as those who are administering the combined authority? In other words, there is a question about the independence of advice that is given to the overview and scrutiny committee. Who decides, for example, what gets on to an agenda of a meeting and how do the members of the overview and scrutiny committee know what they should be discussing? Presumably, the officers of the combined authority who are managing the work of the overview and scrutiny committee will tell them what that is, but I hope that when guidance is issued, it will be made absolutely clear that an overview and scrutiny committee must be given the maximum information possible to enable it to do its job properly.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think I need to write to the noble Lord. I understand the point he is making, which is that there could be a conflict of interest on the part of the employees of the combined authority who may be servicing the O&S committee but may also be employees of the authority doing something else, so one needs some form of Chinese wall to make sure that the O&S committee gets the information it needs, even if that may embarrass some of its fellow employees on the combined authority.

The combined authority must appoint a scrutiny officer whose role is that of scrutiny, which is helpful. As I say, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord to amplify the issues he has raised about conflicts of interest, Chinese walls and so on. I commend the order.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Shipley

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we move from the international to the local. The draft orders we are considering this afternoon, if approved and made, will provide the rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities and the rules by which mayoral vacancies are to be declared, and the procedure for filling them through by-elections. They are essential to enable the first elections of combined authority mayors to take place in May 2017.

The two orders we are considering, if approved and made, will mark a further milestone in implementing agreed devolution deals to date. They are essential for ensuring that elections for the office of mayor can be conducted and any mid-term vacancies filled on a consistent and fair basis.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government committed in their manifesto to implement devolution deals where there was local support and where such deals would result in benefit to local communities. These deals have been forthcoming. Devolution involves conferring significant powers and budgets on local areas that have agreed to have directly elected mayors, providing that essential single point of accountability for such major new powers.

I remind noble Lords that Parliament has approved, and we have made orders, establishing city region mayors in Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region, Sheffield city region, the West Midlands and the Tees Valley. Furthermore, orders creating such mayors in the west of England and for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have been laid before Parliament to be considered. If approved, they will be in place in time for them to elect their first combined authority mayors in May. In all these cases, the councils have agreed and consented to having a directly elected mayor.

The orders provide first and foremost for the conduct of the elections for those mayors that will first take place in May this year. The rules will apply in those and subsequent elections. The second and smaller order provides for how vacancies in the mayoral office are to be handled should a vacancy arise following election. Both these orders have been debated in and consented to by the other place, with the vast majority in favour. This support reflects the vital nature of these orders to ensure that mayoral elections for combined authorities can go ahead in May.

Finally, for setting the wider context, orders that will confer devolved powers on these mayors once elected will come forward. The first such order was approved by Parliament before Christmas, devolving powers to the Greater Manchester mayor. Orders devolving powers to the west of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and the Tees Valley are before Parliament. We will bring orders in the coming weeks for the Liverpool city region and the West Midlands. We will also lay further orders for the Tees Valley and Greater Manchester.

On the specifics of the orders, I emphasise that they should be seen in the context of the full body of electoral law governing local elections throughout England. These orders do not seek to make piecemeal changes to this wider body of law. The rules set out in the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order closely reflect the rules that apply to local authority elections, elections of local authority mayors and elections for police and crime commissioners.

The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order makes detailed provision about the conduct of the elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities. Although the order may seem bulky—running to some 151 pages—it is necessary to fully specify all the rules of these elections of combined authority mayors. This full specification of the rules is the approach we use for all other elections.

As I have said, these rules largely replicate the generality of election rules and apply them to the particular situation of combined authority mayors. Therefore, I simply highlight the four areas where special provision for combined authority mayors has been made, because the circumstances of these mayors is such that the standard rules could not appropriately be applied.

First, particular provision has been made for candidate deposits. These are the deposits that candidates must lodge and which are returned to the candidate if their share of the vote is more than 5%. The rules in the draft order provide that the deposit for a mayoral candidate is £5,000. This is the same amount as the deposit for candidates for police and crime commissioners. It is significantly greater than the £500 required for a local authority mayor. The difference reflects, and is commensurate with, both the larger size of the areas over which a combined authority mayor or police and crime commissioner will have jurisdiction and their level of responsibility.

Secondly, there is particular provision for nomination arrangements. This is the number of signatures that candidates are required to collect to be validly nominated for election. With this order, the requirement for candidates for election as combined authority mayors is to secure a minimum of 100 subscriptions—that is, signatures of electors. Moreover, at least 10 of these subscriptions must come from the area of each constituent council; in two-tier areas, from each district council within the area of the combined authority. In cases with more than 10 constituent authorities, candidates will still require at least 10 subscriptions from each area, and so in such a case will require more than 100 total subscriptions. This is a significant increase from the rule for local authority mayors, which requires candidates to secure 28 subscriptions. As with deposits, this increased requirement is commensurate with the increased constituency size and responsibilities of combined authority mayors. The requirement to obtain a number of subscriptions from each constituent area ensures that candidates secure support from the full range of areas, however diverse, within any combined authority. It would prevent for example, candidates being nominated who secure support, say, from one particular part of a combined authority area—perhaps the rural hinterland—but have no support in the urban core.

Thirdly, particular provision is made for candidate spending limits. This is the limit that restricts the amount candidates are able to spend on election expenses during the election campaign. For local authority mayors, candidates are limited to £2,362, plus 5.9p per registered elector in the local authority area. For a combined authority mayor, this limit is £2,362 per constituent council, plus 5.9p per registered elector within the combined authority area. This provision—with the majority of the funding being measured per capita— ensures that appropriate candidate spending limits are set across the range of mayoral combined authorities, which vary significantly in size. Total candidate spending limits under this provision also, when appropriately scaled for numbers of electors, align closely with the spending limit for candidates campaigning for election as Mayor of London.

Noble Lords will notice that all these candidate limits—for local authority mayors, combined authority mayors and Mayor of London—are lower than those for police and crime commissioner elections. This is because candidates for police and crime commissioner will need to spend more in order to communicate directly with the electorate, since in these elections there is no requirement on the returning officer to prepare an election address booklet covering all candidates to be delivered to all electors at no cost to the candidates.

Fourthly, this order allows for the creation of a combined authority returning officer—or CARO—to be appointed by the combined authority. This is similar to the provision creating a police area returning officer—or PARO—for police and crime commissioner elections, and ensures that there is an appropriate individual appointed to oversee the election as a whole.

It should be understood that in both of these roles, the respective returning officers are personally responsible for publishing the notice of elections, administering the nomination process, ensuring that candidates comply with the requirements regarding the content of their election addresses, collating and calculating the number of votes given for each candidate, calculating the result and declaring the result. It is therefore highly important that this role is carried out by a competent individual.

Turning to the Combined Authorities (Mayors) (Filling of Vacancies) Order 2017, this smaller order is necessary to establish the rules by which vacancies are declared in the office of combined authority mayor, and the procedure for filling these vacancies through by-elections. They follow exactly the procedures adopted for other types of local authority. Noble Lords will understand that these provisions are required to be in place in advance of the election of combined authority mayors in May 2017 to ensure that any subsequent vacancies can be appropriately and consistently dealt with.

In conclusion, the draft orders we are considering today are vital to ensure that the democratic elections to these important offices can first take place in May 2017, and that associated arrangements are in place in good time should any mid-term vacancies occur. It is these detailed rules set out in the orders before us today that provide the strong legal framework for these elections. It is such a framework that ensures that all can have confidence that the elections have been fairly conducted and that the outcome of the poll genuinely reflects the democratic wish of local electors. I commend both draft orders to the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the discussion of these orders. I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I seek clarification on two points in one of the orders, because, broadly speaking, most of what is proposed is not contentious for us.

I have a question about the combination of polls, and my query lies with paragraphs 8.7 and 8.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The memorandum says, rightly, that when you combine polls, that produces cost savings. Given that this is a new election, can the mayoral elections be held on the same day as a general election? In other words, might we end up with three elections on one day? I note the following words in paragraph 8.10:

“Government is confident that electoral administrators will be able to effectively administer combined authority mayoral elections and other polls that they may be combined with”.


That says that the Government are confident, but what evidence were they given by electoral administrators? Running three elections at once is clearly more complicated than running two.

My second question relates to the election booklet that the Minister referred to. Is it the intention to distribute that election booklet alongside poll cards? Clearly, if it is a single process, that will reduce costs at a time when local authorities are having great difficulty in balancing their budgets. Having to pay for two separate distributions will be more expensive and unwieldy than if both are delivered together.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests—specifically, that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have been told, the orders before us today, if approved, will provide the framework and rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities, specifically for the elections taking place in May this year. The second order, as we have heard, deals with the process of addressing vacancies in the office of mayor and sets out how those will be dealt with. I am happy to support both orders before the House this afternoon.

I note that the first order contains matters such as the spending limits and the formula to calculate those limits, the number of voters needed to sign a nomination paper to make it a valid nomination, and other administrative matters which are quite normal for elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised a couple of points and I shall be interested to hear the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. However, he may be pleased to learn that in fact I have no questions for him in respect of either order and am content to approve both.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Shipley

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We discussed this at a much earlier stage in Committee, in the context of the fact that affordability ought to be defined in relation to people’s incomes and median incomes, and that is the point with which I entirely concur.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to raise an issue that I touched on at Second Reading and again in the debates we had on the right to buy for housing associations and the impact of Section 106 agreements on the voluntary agreement with the National Housing Federation, which says:

“Every housing association tenant would have the right to purchase a home at Right to Buy level discounts, subject to the overall availability of funding”.

A large number of housing association properties have been built under Section 106 agreements. In the pilot scheme currently under way, properties built under Section 106 are excluded from the right to buy. The question I pose to the Minister—she may not be able to answer it today—is whether the powers given to the Secretary of State by Clause 143(2) to make regulations concerning Section 106 could be used to lift any restrictions that may exist on Section 106 developments, which would then enable the right to buy to be exercised by tenants, which at the moment may be precluded by the agreement between the housing association or the developer and the local authority.

Unless something is done about the current restrictions on Section 106, a very large number of housing association tenants, who may be looking forward to exercising the right to buy, may find that it is denied by Section 106. So the question is whether Clause 143(2) can be used to lift those restrictions and enable the expectations of the housing association tenants to be realised.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Shipley

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister understands the seriousness of this matter. I do not want to repeat what other speakers have said. Suffice it to say that there used to be three sources of funding for supported housing: the Supporting People programme, specific grants, and the income from rent and service charges eligible for housing benefit. Given the deep budget reductions to the first two, it has left income from rent as critical to the financial viability of schemes. That is an important issue to be made clear, because if rents go down, the income inevitably goes down and cannot be replaced from other sources. As we have heard, that 1% annual rent reduction policy will have two consequences for supported housing: a reduction in new building and lower staffing support for schemes, and, indeed, the potential collapse of schemes, given that the management and maintenance costs of supported housing can often be a third higher than the general housing stock.

When I spoke on this matter at Second Reading, I said that there was a danger that if the preventive role of supported housing were reduced, it would push up costs in other parts of the public sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has pointed out, there is evidence that the rest of the public sector has to pay out more if supported housing is not there to help people. A few years ago, the Homes and Communities Agency reported that there was a substantial net saving for the public sector from investing in specialist housing.

A further consideration is the evidence of the National Housing Federation, which has identified a shortfall of more than 15,000 units in the number of supported housing lettings available each year to people of working age. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the recent rise in rough sleeping is related to the lack of supported housing lettings. So the conclusion is pretty clear. I understand that the cost to the Government in agreeing Amendments 107 and 109 is around £75 million per year—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that number. If it is, then surely it is at a level low enough for the Government to accept the cost, because the advantages to the public service outweigh the cost of the £75 million loss.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly from these Benches to add my support to Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. When I intervened at Second Reading, I mentioned that I wanted to return to this issue in Committee. Subsequent to that, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, chaired a meeting on the Committee Corridor of a number of organisations which would be directly affected, and they made some very moving presentations about the implications for them if the Bill went through without further amendment. Subsequently, I added my name to the letter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Times, expressing the hope that the Government would smile on this amendment or give the necessary comfort in some other way.

As others have said, the last thing my noble friend wants to do is to precipitate the closure of valuable schemes run by voluntary organisations providing support to vulnerable groups. Indeed, that is why there is a whole clause in the Bill entitled “Exceptions”, and subsection (5) gives powers to the Secretary of State to do basically what he wants to. The exemptions that have been trailed so far by the Government are welcome, but I agree with others that they may not go quite far enough, and I wonder if we can just nudge the Government a little further to give a greater degree of comfort to those running these projects.