Localism Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

126ZA: Clause 46, page 40, line 3, at end insert—
“(6) Before determining whether it is appropriate to hold a local referendum under subsection (2), the principal local authority must notify—
(a) any person who is named in the petition or request,(b) any person who is the owner or occupier of any land to which the petition or request relates, and(c) any other person whom the authority considers to have an interest which is likely to be affected by any steps that the authority may take to give effect to the result of the referendum.”

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am happy we should also discuss my Amendments 128EA and 129CA. So far in this discussion of referendums we have tended to see it almost in a bilateral way between the public, who might petition and support a referendum, and the local authority, which might be disposed to agree to hold a referendum and have to deal with the results. These amendments are concerned with the third party: a person or company whose activities may have been the cause of suggesting that there should be a referendum. Putting it briefly, they should be involved in some way in the process, being consulted at the different stages and having the opportunity to have their say. This is what these three amendments are about.

When we come to it later, the Bill is perfectly clear on how and why a referendum might be held. It is also clear that it would not be binding on the local authority, but the processes are not as clear as they should be. I will take the example of an airport. I have had the advantage of consulting the company that runs Gatwick Airport, but the issue could apply to similar projects and institutions around the country. Of course, if the proposal is of the major kind that comes within the purview of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, or the MIPU that will take its place under the Bill, there is a separate procedure: I will not touch on that.

In the case of airports, the level for application of the processes of the IPC is if a development would involve more than 10 million passengers a year. That is a pretty big hurdle. A great deal of what goes on—this may apply to power stations or even reservoirs, but will certainly encompass airports—including a great deal of the ongoing development that falls below that limit, will therefore have to be considered by the local authority.

I am not referring now to the question of planning, which we will deal with later when we debate the next clause. The question is whether a project may be put forward that has aroused opposition and may therefore provoke a referendum. Gatwick Airport is a good example because it exemplifies exactly what might be expected. Gatwick is the UK's second largest airport. As I have learnt in the course of my discussions, it has the busiest single runway in the world. That is an astonishing fact, but it is what I am told. The airport serves 200 destinations in 90 countries, with around 33 million passengers a year. The airport recently had a change of ownership. The new owners are very busy developing the airport so that its potential can be properly utilised for the benefit not only of the local economy but of the country as a whole. The airport provides around 25,000 jobs on campus and another 13,000 across the region. It generates a very large amount of wealth, as noble Lords may imagine.

The airport does not operate in a vacuum. It is surrounded by local communities and is close to a number of towns. The owners are very conscious of the need to be responsible developers and to take account of local opinion. They have always done that and I suspect that the new management are doing it rather better than their predecessors. Therefore, we are talking about how to achieve a balance between the very desirable objective in the Bill of giving local residents a bigger say in what happens in the areas in which they live, and giving investors the confidence that is necessary if they are going to develop their business. That is the issue. Hitherto we have been talking about the first aspect: the question of how local communities can have a say. The second, of course, is what these amendments are intended to address.

One should remember that a commercial institution like Gatwick Airport often has to work to extremely tight timetables. It has to raise finance and have regard to its regulator. An economically regulated airport such as Gatwick can face severe financial penalties if the targets set by the regulator are not met. Investors need the certainty that there will be no potential obstacles to meeting those timetables so they can be reasonably sure of avoiding the penalties.

How is this new system going to be applied to them? How are you going to deal with this? The purpose of my amendments, as I said at the beginning, is to provide the clarity which the Bill does not have at the moment. They would provide for a transparent consultation between a local authority and an affected third party—in this case the company running the airport—which might be named in a local referendum as to whether it is appropriate that a referendum should be held at all. Further, if a referendum is to be called that relates to it, it should be notified.

Finally, Amendment 129CA would ensure that a named third party—in this case the manager of the airport or it might be any of the other investors with ongoing development requirements—should be consulted before the local authority chooses whether to give effect to the result at all. We have already discussed that the referendum is not binding: it is a decision the local authority would have to take. All the clause asks is that the affected third party should have an opportunity to have a say and that the local authority should have regard to any representations.

It might be said that these things are so automatic they ought to happen already. I am sure that is not always the case. People can sometimes plough ahead. It may be an unpopular development. I have not been told, but I suspect that around major airports there are communities deeply hostile to what goes on there; it would not surprise me in the least. I used to live near Stansted Airport and, as we have all seen, the opposition to the expansion has been immense. There has been intense opposition. Every airport will have that but they need to be reasonably sure that the managers and the developers can have a proper opportunity to have their say and for their views to be taken into account.

That is what these three amendments do. They provide a level of safeguard against what one might call the unintended consequences of what is otherwise a desirable development. It is people having more of a say about what happens in their own areas. When I questioned the people from the airport they told me firmly, “We agree it is right and proper that local people should be able to express their views on issues specific to their area”. I come back to the point that it is a question of holding the balance. My amendments simply intend to provide reasonable procedures which would enable a better chance with the local authority holding the balance as it should. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the first amendment is an unnecessary addition to the responsibilities of local authorities. On the kind of issue the noble Lord has addressed, such as a very controversial issue like an airport or major development, it is inconceivable that a prospective developer would be unaware of a petition doing the rounds. On the other hand paragraph (b) of Amendment 126ZA says,

“any person who is the owner or occupier of any land to which the petition or request relates”.

I can think immediately of situations in my own ward where we have empty properties about which there is considerable concern. There might well be petitions coming to the local authority to do something about them but very often it is impossible to know who the owner of the property is or how to contact the owner. Again, that would create a significant burden and, with the best possible motive, it is overegging the responsibilities of the authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am most grateful. I take on board what the noble Baroness said but noble Lords opposite and my noble friend Lord Newton have made it clear that this process should not be so burdensome that it kills off the very expression of local opinion that we want to generate.

As regards the amendments tabled by my noble friend, I share his concerns that no person should find himself featuring in a referendum without an opportunity to make representations on the matter. But that I am sure is in the nature of these things and the dialogue within local communities. I understand that my noble friend is using the word “person” in the strictly legal sense of meaning company and corporate activity. In my estimation, it would be a rare case, as I have said, that a referendum will in practice concern a situation where people are totally unaware of the issues that are subject to a referendum.

Similarly, in deciding whether to give effect to a referendum result, the local authority will have regard to the need to balance the views of all interested groups. It will have regard to the economic interests of the area as perceived by it as a local authority and as elected representatives. To take such decisions is what local government has to do all the time. If there was any doubt that it would be appropriate for authorities to consult people directly affected by referendums, I hope that what I have said will dispel that. We believe that the amendments are unnecessary burdens on authorities and I hope that my noble friend will not press them.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am grateful to all those who have expressed their views so frankly on this group of amendments. Of course, this is intended primarily to raise the issue and there have been a number of quite forceful responses. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their support. Nevertheless, in response to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I feel myself in a sense wanting to say touché. Of course, I am not seeking to impose centrally or to tell local authorities the details of how they should do this. But it is part of the function of central government to protect local communities and ratepayers against possible abuse of processes by local government. One would always say that. But it does not need the great mass of legislation in this Bill.

Having said that, I am sure that those who have advised me on this will study the issue carefully and will decide whether it will be necessary to come back to this on Report. We will have quite a lot and it may be that this will not achieve enough support at that stage but we will look at it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 126ZA withdrawn.