Lord Beecham
Main Page: Lord Beecham (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Beecham's debates with the Department for Transport
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
“( ) The statement may include the approach that the relevant authority has adopted for selecting information on pay policy from a provider, including any potential provider, of goods and services.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I do not intend to move the amendment but I urge the Government, in considering issues of procurement and the like, to bear in mind the need to ensure that reasonable conditions, in terms of pay and other conditions of service, are applicable not only to those employed within the public sector but to those with whom it contracts, and to seek to encourage the concept of the living wage, which has been adopted in London by successive mayors and which other local authorities are seeking to promote. I do not wish to detain the House further so the amendment is not moved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the three government amendments in this group give the Local Government Ombudsman the power to operate shared services with other public sector ombudsmen and clarifies the organisation’s ability to delegate functions to its staff.
Making provision for our public sector ombudsmen to share back-office functions makes sound, practical sense, providing as it does scope for better, efficient working. Moreover, making provision for public sector ombudsmen to share services, like a single point of contact for complaints from the public about public sector service failures such as social housing, has clear advantages for the public.
The amendment provides assurance that the Commission for Local Administration in England, as a corporate body, has the power to delegate functions to its officers—for instance, the ability for a member of staff to negotiate and let a contract for cleaning the office. This in no way relates to the delegation powers of the commissioners themselves, who have clear powers of delegation that allow officers of the commission to investigate cases.
The other two amendments in this group, first, make provision for the commencement of the provision that I have just described and, secondly, amend the title of the Bill to give the Commission for Local Administration in England its proper title.
Lord Beecham
All of us on the opposition Benches are happy to concur with the amendment moved by the Minister.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I am so pleased that we have actually reached one of my amendments. I flew back from Sydney yesterday specifically to be here for it but I felt sure that another 25 would have popped in ahead of me again. Fortunately, that has not happened.
This amendment comes about because at the moment, councils have no authority to do anything to maintain standards of appearance—and buildings at all—and this can be very bad for other residents adjoining. The home that I sold in 1977 to very rich people, who now have vast resources in this country, was done up at that time and has not been touched since. It is really quite sad to go past and see the gutters falling off and the stucco all in pieces. People in that street told me that they have repeatedly asked if something could be done about it, and the council has said that no, it has no powers to even request this. These people have taken petitions up to the owners of that house, but nothing has happened. When I asked the council, it said that it has powers if something is unsafe and going to fall down, or if it is a listed building—although even if it is a listed building, it cannot ask for it to be maintained; it can only prevent it from actually falling down when it gets to that point. I was surprised that the council says that it has no powers in this respect.
It should not be a case of demanding that people keep a place in immaculate condition. I know of a similar case in Montpelier Square, where local residents get very distressed by this. It is worth thinking about having an enabling power for councils. I hope that it would be needed. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, and welcome her on her return from her homeland. I trust she has not been suffering from jet lag; I will not detain her too long.
I am not sure that the amendment is necessarily the right way to deal with this. My understanding is that in conservation areas there are provisions under the Town and Country Planning Acts for steps to be taken to maintain properties of this kind. It is not without interest that in Edinburgh recently there have apparently been problems with requirements being imposed on local residents by the local authority—who appear to have powers similar to those advanced in this amendment—which have caused some controversy. Apparently large sums of money have had to be laid out on improving or maintaining properties, and some of those who are benefiting from those expenditures have been connected with the decision-making process. That would not be applicable if the amendment were carried, and one would hope that it would not occur. Nevertheless, it is difficult to define exactly what standards would be required.
There is, however, a more general point which applies to this and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and that is the general by-law-making powers of local government. This is something I took up with the previous Administration, and some modifications were made about that issue. It might be worth the Government looking at the extent to which councils are free to make by-laws as opposed to having to have everything approved by individual departments. Alongside that, perhaps the Government could look at the question of consent regimes generally, which is something again that I have been attempting to pursue for a number of years, including in some recent Written Questions.
The noble Baroness has touched on an issue, perhaps almost inadvertently, that is worth considering: the capacity of local authorities to make particular provisions for their areas without necessarily having to have everything approved by central government. I do not know how the Minister will respond; I suspect that he will acknowledge the good intentions but say that perhaps it is not appropriate for this Bill, and I certainly would not press him to go further than that. However, I ask the Government to take back the issues of by-law-making powers and consent regimes generally, not for the purposes of this Bill, but as part of a localist agenda.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing her amendment and welcome her back to Britain. Local authorities already have extensive powers to take action where a property is dangerous or having an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. I see no need for additional powers. Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can tackle poor conditions across all residential properties. If a property is found to contain serious hazards, the local authority can instruct its owner to undertake any works necessary to ensure that it is safe. Inspections and any subsequent enforcement to address the disrepair can be triggered by complaints to the local authority.
Local authorities have a key role to play in identifying empty properties in their areas, and in developing strategies to bring them back into effective use. We encourage local authorities to work with owners to persuade them of the benefits of bringing their property back into use. However, where it is clear that owners are not prepared to co-operate with efforts to get their property occupied through agreement, local authorities have enforcement powers to deal with them. Further powers available to local authorities to tackle disrepair and poor maintenance include those in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Where properties have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, local authorities can require that they are tidied up, repainted and, where necessary, rebuilt. I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness and that those who are concerned will have more luck in getting their local authorities to pursue the powers that they have.
I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the by-law issue. I confirm that the Government will look into that further.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, this amendment came to me because someone who lives near me in central London phoned me and said, “I don’t know what to do. I can’t open the windows on this swelteringly hot day because all the people who are working on the local building site are sitting along the garages below my residence, and the smoke is so intense that I can’t open the window. I am going to die of the heat”. She did not die of the heat; nevertheless, I rang the local council. It was not something I had ever thought about before. I said, “What can you do about it?”. The council said, “We can do nothing. We get these issues all the time, particularly with restaurants and bars. Lots of people now congregate outside them because they can’t smoke inside”. If anyone happens to live within reach of the smoke, it is absolutely deadly for them. It would be helpful if the council could make this a planning issue.
Last month, I read in the paper that Australia proposes to bring in completely smoke-free streets. I did not hear anything about that while I was there; no one mentioned it. It is obviously of more interest to the press here than it is to people there. That is a bit extreme. My amendment is fairly short and simple but I have had the most intolerant e-mails and letters from people, saying that I am a fascist who is trying to ruin their lives and take away their right to a bit of healthy smoking whenever they feel like it. It is obviously a very emotive issue—quite unnecessarily so. I am not suggesting anything wholesale. However, I am suggesting that people should have the right to live in their homes and open their windows without finding themselves so adversely affected. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, again, one sympathises with the motivation behind this amendment. Quite apart from the particular case to which the noble Baroness referred, it is not a particularly attractive sight to see people hanging about smoking in the street. However, the only grounds on which orders could be made would relate to the impact of that smoking on health.
Enclosed areas are of course covered by the existing legislation, and, as I understand it, there is power to designate areas other than enclosed areas, if, in the authority’s opinion, there is significant risk that without designation persons in the area would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke—areas where, although they are outdoors, there is a concentration of people or of prevailing structures around the area that might lead to people being exposed to the smoke. If that is indeed the case, as it appears to be under the Health Act 2006, there does not appear to be any need for the amendment. I would encourage local authorities to look at that Act. No doubt the Minister in replying will have more information about that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, again I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. Indeed, I have great sympathy for the amendment as it seems to me that the place immediately after the no-smoke zone ends is the problem territory, whether it is outside a public building, or wherever it may be.
The amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws designating areas as smoke-free. The Health Act 2006 makes provision for the prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places and workspaces. It came into force in England on 1 July 2007. Section 4 of the Act provides regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State for Health to make further regulations—for England—designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under the Act. This could cover outdoor places. Therefore, if the evidence on the harms of exposure to second-hand smoke becomes more robust, and the Government’s preference for voluntary local action to extend smoke-free places where there is a clear need is shown not to be working, the Government can consider using Section 4 of the Health Act 2006 at a later date. I would say that, at the moment, the Government do not intend to make use of these powers. However, I know that colleagues in the Department of Health welcome the debate on this important issue and will continue to monitor developments and the evidence.
While we are sympathetic to local authorities making by-laws that preserve public health, our preference is to see local authorities promote the benefits of environments free from second-hand smoke on a voluntary basis. Creating smoke-free areas through legislation gives rise to complex issues, which I know that colleagues at the Department of Health would want time to consider carefully, and I do not think this is something we should be dealing with at this late stage of this Bill. As such, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment and trust that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw it.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 249A. This proposed new clause originates from a well researched report by Ernst & Young in July 2010, commissioned by the National Casino Industry Forum. It was designed to show the impact of a number of regulatory reforms, which would improve the economics of the gaming industry, benefit the public, and the public purse.
The current situation is totally illogical and, in the long run, unsustainable. There are currently 53 permitted areas where casinos regulated under the Gaming Act 1968 are allowed. The system of permitted areas was introduced principally to reduce the number of casinos to a manageable number. The areas were chosen on a subjective basis. The 1971 regulations included a formula under which any county borough outside Greater London with a population of 125,000 people became a permitted area.
When county boroughs were abolished in 1974, the formula was altered so as to bring in those former county boroughs which had a population of 125,000 or more at any time between 1 December 1970 and 1 October 1973. The list has remained frozen ever since. That is almost 40 years ago. In that time, demographics and economic conditions in these areas have changed enormously and 187 licences have been issued under the Gaming Act 1968. I should emphasise that this number is finite, which means that no more can be granted, but the number can be reduced. Of the 187 licences currently in force, 149 are trading; the balance have either closed down as commercially not viable or have not been opened, many for the same reason. Compare that to the 8,800 betting shops in existence, which are not similarly constrained.
Currently, a casino can relocate only within the permitted area in which it is located; so it cannot locate to another permitted area or to a town that is not in a permitted area. Hence, if the permitted area is overcrowded and the casino is commercially unviable it has no option but to close. Yet some 60 local authorities applied for a 2005 licence and were disappointed. This has led to a number of consequences. There are too many casinos within existing permitted areas; there has been a closing down of casinos with resultant loss of jobs; and the Exchequer is losing money from gaming tax lost as a consequence.
What is the solution? We need to be able to permit a casino to move to anywhere in the UK where the local authority is prepared to have one of the existing casino licences. Local authorities would consider whether they wish to have a licensing policy that states they can have a casino within their area. Many local authorities do, as can be seen from the number who applied to have a 2005 Act casino in their area, but were unsuccessful, as I stated earlier.
A casino operator with a non-operating licence—for example, where it has closed down because there were too many casinos in the current permitted area—could apply to transfer the licence to a local authority that wishes to have a casino. No local authority can be forced to have a casino. Under Section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005, it can resolve on a licensing policy stating that no casino licence will be granted. A local authority which has a no-casino policy currently in place will be excluded, unless it decides to change its licensing policy.
Even if a local authority passes a policy stating that a casino can be located in its area, the public has to be consulted. Before a new casino can open there will still need to be separate planning and premises licence applications where the public and any other interested party will be able to make representations. Only if these two things happen will the casino be able to move to a new location.
What are the consequences? The impact of this amendment, if accepted, will be to create new leisure facilities in a locality, new capital expenditure, new jobs—the NCIF calculates that 2,400 to 3,000 new jobs could be created in consequence—and increased revenue for the Exchequer. The Ernst & Young analysis confirms that up to £12 million in additional gaming duty would be levied if just 20 casinos relocated.
This proposal does not increase problem gambling as there is no increase in the overall permitted number of casino licences. Therefore, this is a genuine win-win solution. By way of explanation, Amendment 249A will extend the benefit of these provisions to Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is almost refreshing to move from the constant headlines about the casino economy, which the world has enjoyed for the past few years, to something as substantive and reasonable as the noble Lord has brought to the House today in terms of the limited number of premises to which this amendment would apply. The key to the argument of the noble Lord is that this should be a matter for local decision within the overall context of that limited number. It seems to be entirely consistent with the approach of localism—it should be a matter for local determination—with the benefits that the noble Lord has referred to being realised in a number of places that wish to see that kind of development augmenting their current offer to residents and visitors. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on the amendment and facilitate its passage.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I am aware that this amendment would make changes that some elements of the British casino industry have been seeking for some time. I can sympathise with the sentiments behind it, but this is not the right time to discuss the issues that the noble Lord raises. It is not an uncontroversial proposal and it would be wrong to assume that there is unanimous support for it either inside or outside the industry.
Seventeen new licenses were provided for by the Gaming Act 2005 aimed at contributing to economic development and regeneration in carefully selected locations. We do not know what sort of impact this proposal could have on the eight competitions to award the new licenses which are currently under way. All of those have yet to launch their processes. It would not be right to bring forward measures at this stage which could undermine these competitions and adversely affect the benefits that these new casinos could bring to local communities.
Nor should we assume that the casino industry in Britain is united behind this proposal. I understand that the industry is split over the idea. The National Casino Industry Forum supports it, but the Casino Operators Association is thoroughly opposed. That is not to say that the Government reject outright the principle behind the amendment, but there is some way to go before we could consider offering our support and we would need to look at some issues. For example, the amendment as proposed does not require the 40 or 50 currently dormant casino licences to be handed back as a quid pro quo. That might be an important gesture to ensure that any new flexibility did not lead to a substantial increase in the number of casinos.
The relevant Minister, the Minister for Tourism, who is responsible for gambling policy has met with representatives of the industry a number of times and they are fully aware of his views. I am sure that he would be prepared to consider this matter in the future in the terms that I have just outlined. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I have huge sympathy with my noble friend’s amendment. Before he left the Chamber, my noble friend Lord Newton, who is taking part in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, said that he was sorry not to be able to add his voice because he feels very strongly about this.
For nearly 30 years I lived in rural Essex within reach of my former constituency, and one of the disadvantages of the road we lived in was that it was perennially the subject of littering. There was a corner at the bottom of the hill with a bit of spare ground on the left-hand side and my children very quickly christened it “Mattress Corner”. It had become a place where people could dump their unwanted mattresses, which then had to be cleared up by the local authority. It was not only that. We lived a mile and a half outside the village where there was a fish and chip shop. We discovered that we were almost exactly the distance away that it took people to eat a bag of chips. I found myself as the riparian householder having to go out at fairly regular intervals with a plastic sack and one of those nice machines with which you can pick up things and pop them in the sack, simply to clear up the litter on both sides of the road that had been deposited by passing vehicles. Even if you saw a car with litter being thrown out of the window as it went past, there was nothing you could do. You did not know who the driver was or who had thrown it out. There was no point in taking down the number because nobody would do anything about it. You had to prove who it was. So I have every sympathy with this.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that it is not enough just to talk; you have to do. I have previously declared an interest as the joint president of London Councils and I am happy to say that London Councils is engaged at the moment in tackling this problem in London. It does this on behalf of the London boroughs and I think it is now ahead of the game. The London Local Authorities Act 2007 contains a provision to decriminalise the dumping of litter from cars and to impose a liability for penalty charges on the keeper of the vehicle. That is slightly different from the proposal put forward in my noble friend’s amendment but it is clear that we all have the same objectives in mind. A London Local Authorities Bill is currently awaiting its final stages in the other place. It will make a small drafting correction to that provision which will allow it to come into force.
Other steps are necessary. Discussions have taken place and progress is being made with the Ministry of Justice in relation to the making of regulations which will enable London borough councils to enforce their penalty charges under the civil regime in the courts. Officials are also co-operating on the necessary alterations to the Civil Procedure Rules and London borough councils understand that these changes and regulations will be made very shortly. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to confirm that the provisions will be implemented very soon and the system can start to work in London. That is doing and not just talking. I believe London will show that this solution is perfectly feasible and can be addressed by local authorities. Other authorities may wish to copy what London Councils is doing and it will not be the first time that has happened. I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am very taken with the image of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, patrolling the highways and byways of rural Essex as a sort of unpaid litter warden. It is a charming thought and I am sure he did a very good job, but he should not have to. That is the message of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and I congratulate him on bringing this matter to the attention of the House and hope that the Government will be able to respond. As the noble Lord said, the matter was debated in another place on an amendment moved by the Member for Gateshead, Ian Mearns, with whom I was discussing this on the train from Newcastle this morning. He received what seemed to be a sympathetic response from the Minister, Andrew Stunell, who said:
“We will certainly look carefully at the matters that have been raised”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/11; col. 441.]
Time has passed so I hope that the consideration has taken place. I think it is preferable to have this in national legislation rather than leave it to by-laws. There seems to be no reason why this amendment should not be proceeded with on this Bill or at least a clear indication given that it will have some priority in other legislation. But this is really too good an opportunity to miss and I hope that the Minister in replying, even if he cannot say today that the amendment will be accepted, will indicate that by Third Reading there will be a clear position and the Government will feel able to adopt it.
Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, this is essentially a matter of enforcement. There is little point in having regulations without the capacity to enforce them. But, as the Essex police have found out in another context, enforcing measures concerning the driving of vehicles is not necessarily straightforward. This would certainly obviate the kind of difficulties that have arisen in another case and one would hope that the Government would see the logic of that and accept the thrust of the noble Lord’s amendment, and see to it one way or another that the objective which most of your Lordships share is carried into being.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and his tenacity in pursuing this issue. It is always said that this is a House of experts. I had not appreciated the expertise that we had between us about the distance from the fish and chip shop to the home. I am also an expert on this. The home where I was brought up and lived until I was 23 was the exact same distance from the fish and chip shop. It was our garden that caught the recycled newspapers which in those days were used for wrapping up fish and chips, and we had to keep shifting them, so I understand the concern that people have about litter.
This amendment would give local authorities an explicit power to make by-laws about littering from cars. Throwing litter from vehicles on to public land is a littering offence under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Indeed, some local authorities successfully tackle litter louts, issuing them with fixed penalty notices. I fully acknowledge that taking enforcement action against those who litter from vehicles can often represent a practical problem. However, extending the scope of the littering offence, as was also suggested by the Local Government Group in its amendment rejected in Committee in the Commons, raises issues of fairness and proportionality. A registered keeper may be open to prosecution even though they did not commit the offence and were not present to prevent it. It may not always be a ready solution for the registered keeper to avoid prosecution by identifying who was the actual offender.
However, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, powers will shortly become available to London boroughs following enactment of the latest London Local Authorities Bill, currently before Parliament, which will allow them to issue a civil penalty to registered keepers where enforcement officers witness littering from a vehicle. It makes sense to learn the lessons from the application of that approach in London before moving to wider legislation—and legislation is not the only approach. Changing littering behaviour is key. That is why the Government are supporting Keep Britain Tidy in developing the Love Where You Live campaign. That work with businesses, local authorities and civil society partners will make an important contribution to changing behaviour on littering in all its forms. The Defra Secretary of State is calling together later this year representatives of vehicle hirers, motoring associations, manufacturers, service stations, et cetera, with a view to agreeing a voluntary commitment to tackle littering from vehicles.
It is one of the guiding principles of making a by-law that no by-law should reproduce national legislation, which is what this amendment would achieve. That being the case, and although I certainly support the intention behind the amendment, which is that the anti-social practice of littering should be a criminal offence, I cannot support it and trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I am delighted by the policy statement but I have one question that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. In relation to panel membership, I notice that the statement of policy specifies:
“The relevant representative body will put forward nominations in respect of its members”,
of persons with sectoral experience, to the Minister. What opportunities will there be for bodies such as the Greater London Authority which are not part of a representative organisation to make nominations to the Minister in respect of panel membership? I would be grateful if he could answer that question, which probably relates to Amendment 195ZAJ but I find it so difficult when I look at all those amendments to know exactly which one it relates to.
Lord Beecham
I join other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble Earl on the manner in which this matter has now been put back on track. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that most of us would not have wished to have started from here, but where we are ending owes very much to the thoroughness, attention to detail and decisiveness of the noble Earl—qualities in which he emulates his distinguished grandfather. It is some 49 years since I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Earl’s grandfather and he made a significant impression on me, young as I was at that time. The noble Earl is doing so again today, not merely on me but on all Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend's grandfather lived in my constituency.
Lord Beecham
He was none the worse for that. I do not think that his wife, who used to drive him around, would have been guilty of depositing fish and chip papers anywhere near the noble Lord’s house.
The position that we have reached is one that the Local Government Association has worked very hard with the Minister and colleagues from all sides of the House to achieve. In particular, the outcomes around the designation and the opportunity to correct a situation that perhaps led to a fine—the provision of an effective appeals system—have all been significant. I am encouraged that the statement of policy that has been produced by the Local Government Group is one that I understand the Government are minded to adopt. Perhaps when he replies the noble Earl will indicate how far their consideration of the document has gone and whether there are likely to be any issues of significance that might not accord with the proposals that have been made. I understand that effectively an agreed position has been reached around four main areas: working in partnership; that there should be no surprises; that there should be a fair and proportionate process; and that consideration should be given to the ability to pay.
One of the crucial issues first voiced in the debate to the Committee by the LGA was the lack of an opportunity for local government to be involved in the legislation from which proceedings ultimately might flow in terms of infringement of European law. It is welcome that the Government have now indicated that local government will be identified specifically as a key sector for consultation when the Government enter into negotiations on EU legislation that could ultimately lead to fines coming down to local authorities. That is an extremely important extension of the consultative role that should ensure that the legislation is right in the first place, which would be a distinct improvement on the position hitherto.
The Minister has made it clear that there will be no surprises in future. No local authority will be taken by surprise because of the designation process, which is a reasonable one in which Parliament will be involved. Equally, the process will be broadly based in terms of those involved in deciding a number of matters—for example, whether the UK Government themselves have contributed to the infraction. I take it that that will also apply to any infraction that might have been contributed to by the devolved Administrations where their activities impinged on European legislation. I assume that that is taken care of in the arrangements that the Government have come to with the devolved Administrations.
My final point is crucially important. The panel will determine these matters and the Minister will consider the authority's ability to pay a fine and provide for possible alternatives in the event that the ability to pay is not present. It is conceivable that a small district council might find it impossible to pay a significant fine in respect of some infraction of environmental legislation within its competence. It is extremely welcome that the Government have acknowledged that that is a risk and that they will not be seeking to extort from such an authority a contribution to a financial penalty that would seriously impede the activities of that local authority.
Thanks very largely to the Minister, we have reached a satisfactory position on this. It has been a good example of the way in which local government and the Government can work together and in which Ministers can listen to proceedings in your Lordships' House, take back concerns and proposals and work with them. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able, metaphorically at least, to bite one or two of his ministerial colleagues in the hope that this becomes a habit across government and not confined to the noble Earl.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Tope and other noble Lords for their kind comments. First, I plead not guilty for all the work: it was my officials what done it.
My noble friend Lord Tope talked about consultation on the EU legislation and the fact that we are committed to consulting with local authorities. I am confident that the LGG will hold our feet to the fire on this issue.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned Keeling schedules. They are useful in certain circumstances but the decision to use them is decided on a case-by-case basis.
My noble friend also asked me to give an assurance that under no circumstances could fines refer to activities, errors and omissions made before the Bill passes. I am very happy to give an absolute assurance that under no circumstances can the provisions be used retrospectively. Subsection (5)(b) of the clause proposed by Amendment 195ZAH means that only actions or inactions after designation can be taken into account. This is extremely important because it allows all those affected to concentrate on solving the problem rather than listening to the lawyers and doing nothing other than arguing. It is a very important point.
Earl Attlee
And ability to pay—a very important point. The fines can only be set at a level that will not effectively bankrupt the authority. That is one of the principles in the legislation.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am not at all sure that this is the right solution to the problem but I am sure the problem is there and I very much hope this Bill will deal with it. When one is looking at the application of localism to urban environments and to giving local communities some degree of control and influence over what is happening, one of the great problems—certainly a problem in the bit of London I lodge in during the week which is Lavender Hill—is empty properties. They are principally retail properties where the owners appear to have decided that they would rather they went empty than accept a lower rent and have some kind of commercial activity within them.
My view is that these owners should pay the full cost they are inflicting on the community by following that course of action. By allowing the street to appear derelict and empty they reduce the trade for other businesses. They reduce the prosperity of the area. They reduce the opportunity for jobs for people who live in the area. It is a thoroughly delinquent behaviour. It is something that costs the rest of the community dear. I do not believe that the current arrangements that merely allow for an ordinary empty rate are at all satisfactory. If we are going to have in the future the opportunity to create a neighbourhood in Lavender Hill, one of the first things we will wish to tackle is all the empty shops. We will not wish to do it by trying to persuade people to pay the vast rents which the street used to be able to command in the days when it was prosperous which was now some long while ago—it was 10 or 15 years ago. Some of these properties have stood empty since then. We will need some way of battening on to these landlords and making them realise that although it is their property and theirs to do what they do with it, if they choose to leave it empty and derelict they should pay the community something in respect of the costs they are causing it by their actions. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Lord has drawn attention to a significant problem with commercial property but the same principle can apply to residential property, particularly in the private rented sector. There are a significant number of homes left empty—it runs into some hundreds of thousands. In urban areas in particular it is very often private rented properties that are left unoccupied. They are as much a blight on the local neighbourhood as empty commercial properties and of course the demand for accommodation is considerable. Just recently walking around the ward I represent I noticed a number of properties that have been empty for some years. They are not in particularly good condition but not sufficiently dangerous to allow the local authority to take steps. It would certainly be an incentive for landlords to let those properties and bring them into use for the benefit of the whole area if a similar principle were adopted for residential properties as the noble Lord proposes for commercial properties. I hope the Government will look sympathetically on that aspect of it and endorse the noble Lord’s amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I am slightly concerned by this amendment as I think there is an international problem occurring of people buying things online to such an extent—I heard this in Australia while I was there and I believe it is the same everywhere—that people are closing up small shops because there is simply no way they can afford to compete with online purchases. I do not know what will happen in these instances. What will local authorities do? Will the people who own the shops be encouraged to convert them into residential accommodation or would it be considered very damaging to the whole high street suddenly to find that instead of shops in continuity in a row suddenly two or three were houses? In the past there were lots of little shops that were once houses. Would we be prepared to see the reverse of that happening?
I think it is a very complicated issue, and, if the landlord simply cannot get a tenant now, what does he do? Does he allow the property to fall down? I do not know what the answer is, particularly with the shop premises.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
I will certainly use my best endeavours to see that we can write to the noble Lord and that copies are placed in the Library so that other noble Lords with an interest can see the results of that.
Lord Beecham
Can the Minister also consider the points that I made in addition to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for Third Reading?
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I understand that this amendment, like many others, would become superfluous, if, as I apprehend, the Government are to accede to amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, effectively to remove from the Bill the provisions for local referendums except in respect of council tax increases deemed to be excessive. In the circumstances that I apprehend are about to occur, there is not much point in my moving this amendment, and therefore I will not do so.
Amendment 195ZAZMB not moved.
Amendment 195ZAZN
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am significantly less well informed than the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. This has caught me by surprise, particularly since, in various discussions with my noble friend’s officials, the local referendum was used to ward off my requests for amendments in other areas. To go over some of my concerns, I have, throughout the passage of the Bill, tried to persuade the Government that they need to look at how localism will work in cities. In rural and suburban areas, planning is a great lever and generator of funds. All things will be possible if we get the planning side right. Once you have funds, you have the ability to do what you want in a neighbourhood to a certain extent. You certainly have a lever with which to negotiate with the local authority.
However, even in as gentle an urban area as Lavender Hill, planning has no function as a raiser of funds or people’s enthusiasm. The place is built out. There is very little that planning can do. You will never get a community created in Lavender Hill, let alone some of the more difficult areas of cities, on the basis of what is in the Bill. We should be turning our thoughts to how the section on allowing local initiatives to run local services might be made less formal so that neighbourhoods might group around it. We ought to turn our minds to how neighbourhoods can make representations to local councils and be listened to on subjects that they really care about, such as school catchment areas, how parking is enforced and how decisions are made about the distribution of services.
There are many ways in which we might build localism in cities. Surely the riots have shown us the importance of doing that. However, in removing this provision the Government remove the one bit of the Bill that gives a possible voice to neighbourhoods in cities in trying to persuade their local councils to do something in the way that the neighbourhood wants them to be done. I will not argue with the Minister and my other noble friends that what is in the Bill at the moment is not an expensive and bureaucratic way of doing it, but we have to find something else. The Bill is such an opportunity to improve life in cities but the Government do not seem interested in taking it. I find that enormously disappointing. I am particularly sad that—since somewhere in the great collective mind that is the department there is an awareness of my arguments—I should be kept in the dark and not given time to prepare thoughts and arguments to compensate for this loss later in the Bill. I shall apply myself to it for the rest of the evening. With luck, we shall not get so far into the Bill that I cannot find ways of putting back opportunities to argue these things. As I say, my main concern is that this great opportunity to help build communities in cities is being allowed to pass by at a time when we are all acutely aware that it should not be.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s decision to accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We debated this at some length in Committee. The drawbacks of the system that the Government had intended to bring in were made manifest at that time. The Government, having made the egregious error—in the view of some of us—of adopting an American system for the direct election of police commissioners, were in danger of incorporating something like a Californian referendum system into local government. It has not been noticeably successful in California.
A referendum is a legitimate way of testing public opinion. That is absolutely right. It is less obvious that the proposals in the original Bill—to allow a very small minority of either elected members or the public to engender petitions on any subject under the sun, at any time and at any cost—would make a significant contribution to the kind of community engagement that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, rightly wishes to see not only for the Lavender Hill mob but more generally. It is a perfectly legitimate and, indeed, important part of what local government and local governance must be about. However, there are other ways of involving communities and testing opinion. It is a pity that one of those ways—the petitioning procedure that was admittedly somewhat overcomplicated by the degree of regulation applied to it—has been abolished by the Bill. It required a council response to a petition from residents. It was a good measure. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, made great play of the fact that it was extremely bureaucratic in the way that the previous Government laid out how these things should be conducted. There was some force in that but the principle was a good one. It required an authority to respond to a concern that was formally raised by petition. I hope that the Government might, even at this late stage, given that they have taken out this part on referendums, look again at whether that might be reintroduced, perhaps in some more acceptable form than previously.
There is also the councillor call for action. I do not think that the Government have disturbed that principle. Admittedly, it is up to a local councillor to make the call but, on the other hand, a councillor who declines to make a call when faced with a considerable body of opinion in his ward is unlikely to remain a councillor for long. There is also that mechanism. Generally, in recent years local government has been more inclined to establish local mechanisms for consultation and involvement. I hope that that will be reinforced. However, the substantial construction of the previous arrangements for referendum effectively constituted an invitation for people to make mischief, which would have happened, to divide communities, which would also have happened, and to involve the authority in considerable expense. It could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds for a significant-sized authority. The noble Lord, Lord True, expressed serious concerns on that basis. Therefore, we very much welcome the withdrawal of this proposition, which leaves three areas where referendums might occur, as we have heard. We shall come to one of those, namely the council tax referendum, shortly.
Under the circumstances, I am not sure that it is right at this point to raise some of the concerns of the Electoral Commission, with which some of your Lordships will be familiar, about how such referendums—now in only three categories—might be conducted. It raises a concern about expenditure in promoting referendums of that kind. Clearly, for local referendums that are being abandoned it will no longer apply. However, it will still be potentially applicable to other referendums—the three that have been referred to, on elected mayors, council tax and neighbourhood planning issues, which we will eventually come to. I raise it now so that Ministers might have an opportunity to think a little about the Electoral Commission’s concerns. They may of course have a response already; but if they have not, then those concerns will not disappear because these particular provisions are no longer to feature in the Bill.
I hope that in the course of further debate we will have an elucidation of the Government’s position in relation to what is a real concern in respect of how the remaining referendums might be conducted, and, more particularly, how they might be financed. Subject to that, I certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I am pleased that the Government are, as the noble Baroness so gently puts it, minded to accept them.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not know that there is an awful lot more to say. It is interesting that at this stage of the proceedings we have a rather limited number of people here to debate what, in Committee and at Second Reading, was a significant and major issue, with barely a friendly voice in place for these provisions. I therefore say to a rather muted House that we have listened to the concerns and anxieties that were raised over all those aspects put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and others, about the expense. We have decided with regard to towns that the local referendums do not need to have a place within this Bill.
If I may just briefly address my noble friend Lord Lucas, who—if he will forgive me saying so—has strayed a little bit away from what these amendments would do. This is no attack on the cities. It is nothing to do with the cities. It is a general point of view and a general provision that would have allowed anybody—urban, rural, whatever—to have referendums. It has nothing to do with planning, either, as the planning referendums are not affected by this Bill, and we will be returning—probably on Wednesday—to the whole area of provisions for neighbourhood planning and neighbourhood referendums.
As other noble Lords have said—as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out in his introduction and as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said as well—there are going to be other opportunities for referendums. Not only are there the council tax referendums, there are the right-to-build referendums and the neighbourhood planning referendums. Those complement the provisions for referendums which are already open to councils to carry out on governance. Any council may carry out parish polls and informal polls which are to do with its services and functions. We believe that there is pretty good coverage of this, and that there is the chance for people to have their voice heard without these provisions.
We have accepted what has turned out to be the will of the House at a much earlier stage, namely that these provisions should be reconsidered. We have reconsidered them, and therefore I tell the House that we will accept the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope.
Lord Beecham
Before the noble Baroness sits down, first of all I hope that she will forgive me for not thanking her, as I should have done, for responding, as she has just said, to the will of the House. It has been another very constructive contribution, and I am sure the whole House is grateful to her. Could I ask in respect of the issue raised by the Electoral Commission, which I appreciate is a slightly wider issue, whether the Government will be looking at that before we get to Third Reading, as there will be areas in which it might be relevant?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have seen the Electoral Commission’s submissions in relation not only to the costs, but to questions and to how it should be involved. I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer but it does seem to me to be inconceivable that we should not take quite serious note of the Electoral Commission’s representations on this. I am sure we will come back to that issue.
Lord Greaves
I take it that that was not the Minister’s reply to the debate. I have three brief points to make. We are moving on to the community right to challenge, and some of us have found it quite difficult to understand how it will work and how some of the problems which might result will be overcome. I thank the Bill team for their time and patience in explaining exactly how they see it working and being fairly honest about some of the difficulties which might exist. This is a difficult part of the Bill and it is one which, when it is enacted, as no doubt it will be, will need a careful eye kept on it. I cannot say that we have not had an immense amount of co-operation in trying to thrash it out.
I very much support Amendments 197B and 197E to 197G on the timing issues. Those are clearly a result of responding to the public consultation, but also to the discussions in Committee. I do not share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the timing issues. The way in which the timing issues are now presented in the Bill is much better and leaves a great deal of initiative to local authorities. It is much better than the existing wording which leaves it all to the Secretary of State to lay down rules and regulations. I wish that the Government had been more flexible on similar matters in the 100 or so areas in the Bill that we can point to as giving excessive powers to the Secretary of State. In this instance, the Government have listened and we welcome that.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Minister referred to the extension to Ministers of the definition of agencies which might be subject to the right to challenge. That is the burden of Amendment 197B. Perhaps in his reply the Minister might indicate whether that could also include next-step agencies of government, which might carry out functions. More particularly, when one looks at Amendment 197D in conjunction with Amendment 197B, it seems to me that something of an anomaly is being created. There would be a community right to challenge Ministers under Amendment 197B, and that would extend to parish councils, but it would not, by virtue of Amendment 197D, extend to other local authorities, assuming one defines parish councils as local authorities. So we could have the anomalous situation of a parish council being able to exercise a right to challenge a government department or Minister about a provision of a service, but not the principal authority in which it is situated.
I do not imagine that that has been deliberately constructed in that way, but I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to look at that anomaly before Third Reading. Parish councils can be quite substantial bodies—there can be 40,000 or 50,000 people in a parish area—and they might bid for a government service, whereas the county or district in which they are situated could not. That strikes me as a situation which would be difficult to explain. Perhaps it has not been envisaged as a possibility, but it seems to arise from these amendments. Perhaps the Minister could indicate a willingness to look at that point before we get to Third Reading.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in respect of the proposal that two or more employees could issue a challenge to the authority, which I would much rather were not in the Bill at all. Failing that, my Amendment 197CB, would at least require a majority of the employees affected to support such a move. I really hope that the Government will take that seriously. It does not seem appropriate that two or more employees—it might be a director or deputy director; it could be people lower in the organisation—could simply take a decision which would affect a considerable number of people without their consent and outsource a whole section of the local authority. That seems wholly unreasonable and not at all compatible with the general thrust of the Bill, which looks to secure support for a range of measures on the part of communities. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that there is an issue here and will accept one or other of the amendments. My preference would be that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but, failing that, I would be delighted to accept his support for the fallback position.
However, I am less persuaded by his Amendment 197DA. I quite take the thrust of his intention, but I am not sure the wording is very compelling. The amendment refers to the body concerned being required to be,
“actively engaged … in the area in which the relevant service is being provided”.
Let us take as an example a county area and services for the elderly or domiciliary care. There might be an organisation in one corner of the county carrying out that service. It would hardly meet the description of being,
“actively engaged in the area”;
that is, across the area in which the relevant service is being provided. It is difficult to define in the way that the noble Lord seeks.
I am therefore unenthusiastic about the way in which the noble Lord reaches his objective, although I am bound to say that I am not sure that I can offer a better alternative. However, in respect of the previous two amendments, the Government need to rethink their position to facilitate at the very least a majority decision by those who would be affected by a move of two of their colleagues. I cannot see any logical reason why the Government should resist that.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have later amendments on the same issues. In relation to Amendment 197DA, I would like to say to my noble friend that I think that experience in the particular activity that is at issue is less important than the geographical link. I take his point about wanting a connection, but I am not quite convinced that it is the particular connection that he has mentioned. However, by and large I am entirely with him on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, framed this in terms of urban needs, and I myself am very much an urban and suburban person. He also mentioned the comfort of state provision. Since this debate has morphed into discussion not just about two employees, but about whether two employees might, as it were, sell out to Tesco, it does remind me that there is often a very sharp divide on this issue. People do not like Tesco, but they do like being able to shop in Tesco, which creates quite a dilemma.
My question for my noble friend is whether there is any room for local variation in a local authority’s response to such an expression of interest? I will come to my other questions when we come to my amendments later.
Lord True
My Lords, there is a gentle sense of irony in the representative of the workers’ party, and my noble friend who is yearning for the days when his party stood for worker control, expressing so much concern at the prospect of employees, however few—less than half, I gather, is unacceptable— expressing an interest in undertaking a function. It seems to me that we are witnessing major change in communities and local government and that it is perfectly reasonable, indeed it is already happening all over the country, that groups of workers and employees are coming forward with propositions to set up social enterprises, to take on existing bodies and to take on other activities. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to welcome the withdrawal by my noble friend of regulation in the previous group of amendments, which I do welcome. Yet here we are being pushed to prescribe and put blocks in the way of people putting forward expressions of interest simply on the basis that they might be employees of the organisation and, still worse, that they might secretly be in cahoots with capitalism.
Lord Beecham
That is not what I said, nor is it what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. What we object to is the idea of two people in a potentially large organisation committing the rest of the employees. Where is the democracy in that?
Lord True
There is nothing to say that this deals with a large organisation—some of the things that we are discussing at the moment are relatively small. It seems inconceivable to me that two employees would act against the wishes of those people that they actually want to work with in the future. For years the noble Lord endured the policy of his party being made by small, powerful executives purporting to speak in the names of millions of people—for all we know, they probably still do. I do not see any reason why a group of workers or employees should not get together and entrust their negotiations about an expression of interest to two or three of their number. I think that we should be extremely careful in framing this Bill not to put forward regulation that makes employee initiative more difficult.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is quite right that enthusiasm for freedom of information seems to wane the longer a party is in power. He is perhaps sitting there, safely in the far corner of the Back Benches, so that he does not get too heavily stamped on by his own Front Bench. The Labour Party quite clearly lost enthusiasm for the Freedom of Information Bill in the course of taking it through Parliament. It was by the narrowest of squeaks that it survived at all, and that was only six months into government. If it has developed a new affection for it now, I am delighted, but I do not expect it to last.
However, on our Front Bench, we have Mr Freedom of Information himself. My noble friend has been dedicated to this cause for a long time, so I hope that he will take a constructive view of what we might do. I share many of the concerns of my noble friend Lord True and do not think that this amendment does the trick. However, more openness in local government and more consideration of which of the larger contracts in local government should be open to freedom of information would be consistent with the way in which the Government are going; for instance, in considering whether examination boards should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act or putting UCAS on the list of bodies subject to it, as we have a draft regulation to do at the moment. If the processes of the Health and Social Care Bill lead to a substantial transfer of what is currently public activity away from the public gaze, I shall propose that we make sure that it is brought back swiftly through the Freedom of Information Act. I do not see this Bill as leading to large-scale transfers of activity away from the public gaze into obscurity, but there should be some protection in case there is. I hope that we get a constructive answer from my noble friend.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to stamp on my noble friend; it is a highly resistible proposition. I support the thrust of his amendments. Indeed, I detect certain sympathy on the detail of Amendment 199 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There are matters in it that are worthy of further consideration by government and I hope that they will not simply reject the topic out of hand even if they cannot quite accept the wording of the amendments for reasons which have been advanced tonight and perhaps others.
On the new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 201, it is not an extraordinary demand to make of a public body that it should keep a record of, or at least do a report on, requests for freedom of information. I should have thought that this was a reasonably appropriate matter for a council audit committee—I serve on such a committee—to have before it as it is information about the governance of the authority. It does not seem to me that the amendment seeks to impose an inherently onerous obligation. It is one that should be within the knowledge of members of that authority. I think that routing it through the audit committees, or possibly standards committees, of councils would be a good way to ensure that elected members do not lose sight of the council’s obligations and that they ensure that their officers actually comply with them. I hope that the Minister will accede to my noble friend’s request to think about this and to perhaps bring something back at Third Reading. It is an important issue and although sometimes, obviously, there are difficulties in complying with requests, there is no reason why these issues should not be examined and, in the interest of good governance, improvements made to the local regime.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for moving the amendment. It is well known that he was himself, when in office, a champion of freedom of information. I am very grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about my own record. I failed to persuade Jim Callaghan to put freedom of information into the programme of the 1976-79 Labour Government, but I was very happy that it was with Liberal Democrat votes that the Freedom of Information Act that is now on the statute book passed through this House. I am sad to read that the Freedom of Information Act is among Mr Blair’s major regrets of his premiership as it remains one of the things that I am most proud of being associated with.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is a little ungenerous about the approach of this Government. It is not true that we have done nothing since coming into office. In fact, quite the reverse is the case. I think that the initiative that this Government have shown in relation to freedom of information and transparency has been quite revolutionary. The Government are committed to extending the scope of the Freedom of Information Act and to increased transparency and have made considerable progress in this since May 2010. For instance, as part of a package of measures announced in January, we have already introduced primary and secondary legislation to extend the Act’s scope and are currently consulting on more than 200 further bodies in this regard. In order to ensure that the Act continues to meet the needs of its users, the Act as a whole will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. I do not think that noble Lords fully appreciate just how revolutionary that is. Indeed, when I urged that we bring forward post-legislative scrutiny, some of the strongest supporters of freedom of information were slightly nervous that the Act would come under too much criticism. What I say to them, and say to supporters of the Act now, is that post-legislative scrutiny and the assessments built into it will give the opportunity to prove what I still believe: that freedom of information underpins good governance.