Local Government (Review of Decisions) Bill
Debate between Mark Spencer and Brandon Lewis
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I am not quite as surprised as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that we agree; I always knew she would come round to our way of thinking eventually, and long may it last.
On a serious note, I would like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) for his excellent work on this Bill, the aims of which are wholly supported by the Government. I want to make it very clear what this Bill does not do before moving on to the drivers of the Bill—why it is needed—and its intended effect, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding or confusion about the provisions in the Bill, their intended effect or what the Government are supporting. The hon. Lady is right that there will be things to talk through in Committee and the LGA will want to feed into it, although I would point out to the LGA that while local government is building up reserves of some £20 billion to £21 billion it should be focused on the savings it can make by not needing to have health and safety inspectors trawling around taking up too much time—and it will probably find there is a potential saving there as well.
We do need to make sure health and safety is taken seriously and addressed sensibly, however, so let me be very clear: this House will not weaken the very necessary and important health and safety arrangements that rightly exist to protect employees and the public health and safety regime in place nationally. The public, employers, authorities and enforcement organisations do have an important role to play in ensuring that not just our workplaces but our streets and recreational spaces are safe.
Proper and proportionate management of risk is, I think we can all agree, important, and where it is done properly it is to be commended, and in most of the country most of the time that is the case. We have no problem with adequate safeguards or with the proper and proportionate management of risk, nor will this place an unreasonable increased demand on the local government ombudsman’s resources, who also provides a valuable service, considering complaints from members of the public who consider they have suffered an injustice arising from maladministration in councils and other bodies.
The Bill does not change the remit of or impose extra burdens on the local government ombudsman, so what does it do? To begin with, it may be useful to reflect for a moment on the drivers for this Bill—on why it is necessary. My hon. Friend has outlined some of them. It could be said that the Bill has its origins in the rise of the risk-averse culture. By this I do not mean tall tales of health and safety gone mad—although, worryingly, it can be impossible to tell in some cases what is tabloid exaggeration and what is an actual decision about health and safety at an event that we could describe as an over-enthusiastic application of the health and safety culture. Rather, I mean the spread of a risk-averse culture where councils are taking decisions on the grounds of health and safety that either prohibit events from taking place altogether or place such heavy restrictions on them that the event is effectively prohibited from taking place.
These concerns were crystallised in Lord Young of Graffham’s 2010 report, “Common Sense, Common Safety”. The review found inconsistency across local authorities, with the rules on health and safety not being applied with a view to a proper risk management approach.
Mr Spencer
We are also talking about some of these events being prevented not for health and safety reasons, but for other reasons, where health and safety is cited as the purpose for blocking the event. Sometimes people use health and safety just as a reason from nowhere to try to block an event that they do not want to support or have not had the time to consider. It is those types of excuses, as it were, that I want to try to stop with this Bill.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If health and safety is used as an excuse to stop an event happening, rather than an organisation being honest about whether it wants something to happen or not, that does a disservice to the entire world of local government and health and safety because it dilutes the very important role health and safety can play in our lives.
The review also found that in some instances inspectors were giving poor advice to organisations and individuals who were in turn prevented from running an event, such as a school fete, when there was no legitimate health and safety reason. Currently, there is no requirement to put the reasons for these prohibitive decisions in writing, and the specific grounds for the decision are not required to be made transparent. That is where part of the problem my hon. Friend outlined is clear. There is also currently no system for appeal or redress when an event is banned or curtailed; event organisers are simply required to accept the decision and not go ahead with the event as planned.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us with organisers discouraged from planning such events for fear, or out of an expectation, that a local authority official will not allow it. That leaves us with communities frustrated in their attempts to come together to celebrate national events or local events, or to raise money for good and charitable causes. Today, we can start to bring an end to that situation. We can put a stop to the spread of this culture.
This Bill is not just about making councils put decisions about health and safety at events in writing—they should be doing that in any case. It is also not just about providing those organising the event with a right of appeal when they disagree with a council decision—again, councils should be doing that. The Bill is about making councils think—about reasonable risk and about a proportionate assessment of health and safety—before they act. The Bill’s aims are simple. Its provisions would require local authorities to give written notification of a decision relating to health and safety at an event and to undertake a review of that decision, if requested. The intention is that those measures will rightly lead authorities to give health and safety issues careful consideration, bringing an end to bans or restrictions on activities that are a result of a risk-averse culture rather than a balanced and informed assessment of risk. Quite simply, the Bill should put a stop to rash decisions based on a risk-averse culture and lead to local authorities making well informed and sound decisions.
The provisions of the Bill, and the need for the local authority to provide reasons for its decision in writing, would bring transparency and accountability to the decision-making process in a way we have not seen before, and would do away with the culture of decisions behind closed doors. Local authorities are accountable to their electorates in the decisions they make. It is right that members of the public should be able to see how a decision has been arrived at as well as why. If a local authority’s decision is informed and sound, there should be no reason for an applicant or events organiser to seek a review of the decision through the ombudsman and, therefore, seek recourse to the mechanism that the provisions in this Bill will provide. The Bill is as much about changing behaviour about local authority health and safety decisions as it is about ensuring the decisions are sound and well informed.
Mr Spencer
Does the Minister recognise that as a society we seem to have lost the ability to rank risk and understand risk? Members of the public sometimes obsess about things that show no risk at all. When we drive to a community event we probably put ourselves in more danger than we do at the event itself. We sometimes wrongly prioritise and misunderstand the proportions of risk.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Let me give him a very good practical example of what he is talking about. As hon. Members will know, I always like to refer to the fantastic area of Great Yarmouth, where I live and which I represent. We recently held an event there in September, extending the tourism season, called the Out There festival, and I want to describe one of the most fantastic things in it, which was the crescendo and which almost brought everything to a close. The media loved it, as did the public; we had a fantastic atmosphere. It was a party where everybody anywhere in Great Yarmouth got covered in paint. It was the most phenomenal colourful exhibition of fun and of a community coming together, despite the fact that everybody probably had large cleaning bills afterwards. It was fantastic, but it is exactly that kind of event that, with the wrong attitude, could easily have been stopped. That event was an amazing way of not only improving our tourism economy for the year, but bringing the community together, raising the profile of our area and bringing people together to have fantastic fun. Such events are important to our communities. Where there is risk we should be aware of it, but it should not necessarily stop a good event, good fun and sensible times being had by all.
We have all heard of incidents in which it is fair to say there have been questionable decisions about events—we have all heard our own stories—but we need to be fair. It is perhaps advisable to question the veracity of health and safety stories that occasionally appear in the press—for instance, about festive events involving reindeer being cancelled due to the threat of snow—where the reporting may have erred on the side of being enthusiastic, or where the true origin of a story, perhaps schoolchildren being banned from playing conkers unless they are wearing goggles, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, has more to do with individuals being over-enthusiastic in ensuring playground discipline than any local authority decision.
Indeed, there are so many stories about ludicrous health and safety decisions being made based on a risk-averse culture that the Health and Safety Executive, as has been said, has an area of its website dedicated to myths. It started in 2012 and showed 325 cases by the start of this October, the latest of which is about passengers not being able to board an aeroplane while carrying hot beverages. It really is recommended reading if anyone is ever in any doubt whatsoever that there is an over-cautious approach to health and safety in local government and beyond.
A few highlights—or lowlights, some people may argue—include the case of the scouts who were not allowed to have an allotment. Apparently, a troop of scouts under the supervision of a leader was advised by the chair of its local allotment community gardens site that they could not have a plot for health and safety reasons. The scouts were keen to grow their own veg, and an allotment would have been ideal for a small group to get started with. The HSE’s site usefully includes its view of the case, and it strongly believes that this was an excellent opportunity for scouts to become involved in growing food and getting physical exercise.
I am afraid to say that this is not the only case of children being discouraged when attempting to grow their own veg. A pre-school that used a garden managed by the local parish council and a designated public open space was told that it could not leave pots of flowers and vegetables grown by the children in the garden, claiming health and safety reasons, and asked for them to be removed. The pots were placed by posts holding up a small patio area and on slabs surrounding a shed. The pre-school had been told that someone might trip over the pots and sue the parish council. It has removed the pots, but it is unhappy because the children no longer have the learning opportunity that the growing of plants and vegetables would have allowed.
The HSE’s safety supremo was far from impressed and claimed that it is potty—yes, I am sorry about the pun—to impose a blanket ban on those standard garden items. These are everyday risks, and the parish council appears to be risk-averse in case it is sued. If there are real concerns about people tripping over pots, the council should discuss them with the pre-school staff, instead of depriving youngsters of the opportunity to learn by growing their own food and flowers.
Then there is the case of council bureaucrats banning donkey rides for children at a village fete because of health and safety concerns. If we ban donkey rides, most of our seaside resorts are in big trouble. Of course, nothing in health and safety law stops children enjoying a holiday donkey ride or requires them to wear helmets to do so. The HSE was very keen to set the record straight and for this and future generations to continue to enjoy the traditions of the summer fete and the seaside holiday.
To continue the seaside theme—as MP for Great Yarmouth, people would expect me to do no less, I am sure—let us move on to chips. We have fantastic chips in Great Yarmouth market square. I highly recommend them to all visitors.
Mr Spencer
Before my hon. Friend moves away from donkeys, I should draw the House’s attention to the fact that this could be the first time that donkeys have featured in debates on two consecutive Bills. I wonder whether the fact that we are prevented from bringing hot beverages into the Chamber is a health and safety issue, or whether it prevents Members from having our own little picnic and not concentrating on the business of the day.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case.
Brandon Lewis
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s desire for a hot toddy late on a Monday evening is one that I will leave him to debate with the relevant authorities in due course.
Let us move specifically on to chips not being served in a paper cone—something that would ruin my Friday afternoons most weeks when I am not here. When ordering chips from a chip shop to take away, a customer asked for her chips to be just put in paper and wrapped in a cone, rather than having them served in the normal plastic tray, so that they would be easier to eat and carry as she walked round the shops. However, she was told by the lady serving behind the counter, “We can’t do that. It’s against health and safety, in case you burn yourself on the chips.” She was advised that once they served them to her, she was more than welcome to remove the tray and wrap them up herself.
The Health and Safety Executive is obviously no stranger to how best to enjoy this traditional treat. I should say that that did not happen in Great Yarmouth. We are very good at looking after our customers, as my Yarmouth Greats campaign has shown, with our great chip shops. The HSE considered that the customer made a perfectly sensible request and there was no health and safety reason that would prevent the shop proprietor from doing as requested. It concluded that such cases of poor customer service need to be wrapped up and thrown in the bin—I am sorry, but I could not resist that.
Fancy a swim to work off those chips, as some Members might argue I should do more often? Just make sure you take all your own equipment. A poster at a public swimming pool stated:
“Due to health and safety regulations, we are unable to lend floats, goggles or woggles.”
I leave Members to look up the meaning of “woggle”. The Health and Safety Executive was having none of this. It was clear that no health and safety regulation prevents the loan of goggles and flotation devices at public swimming pools. Many public swimming pools continue to provide these aids to swimmers without a problem.
Then there was the case where a council managed to use not only health and safety but planning as an excuse to annoy the very community that it should be serving. As the planning Minister, I found this example astounding. A council planning department asked the public not to remove out-of-date planning notices in public areas. The public were doing this in an understandable effort to clean up their community, proud of the area in which they lived. The tone of the Health and Safety response can be described as indignant. Stopping these community-spirited people makes no sense at all, it wrote. The council should cut through some of its own red tape and support well-meaning local volunteers. Removing redundant planning notices as part of a community clear-up poses no significant health and safety risks and should not be an issue.
Finally, there was a case that illustrated not health and safety gone mad, but a sensible approach to a problem which, by the way, turned out to have nothing to do with health and safety. A borough council hung bunting carrying 20,000 small knitted Tour de France jerseys on lamp posts, but the county council asked for the bunting to be taken down owing to concerns about the structural integrity of the heritage-style lamp posts. It appeared that the problem in this case was not the use of bunting, given that the council was distributing quite a lot of it, to its own design, but the use of wire under tension to attach it to heritage-style lamp posts. Given that the lamp posts were seen to be leaning under tension, it was probably a good idea to remove the bunting. The solution lies in suggesting alternative means to display the magnificent work of the locals in creating their own tribute to the tour.
These cases demonstrate that the risk-averse culture extends beyond local government. If reports are to be believed, it can even extend to our chip shops. We in local government and central Government set a trend. We have the ability to set the tone and the direction of travel for others so that they understand the need for common sense, but it is clear that councils have proved particularly adept at banning or prohibiting things on the grounds of health and safety. What the Health and Safety Executive’s replies show, and it should know about these things with the experience it has, is that we can and should trust people to get on with things and look after their own lives. There is risk, and there is also reasonable risk. People should be free to enjoy gardening, donkey rides and hot snacks served in newspaper, should they so choose.
Simply put, this risk-averse culture must be halted, and if by means of the Bill we can introduce measures that will halt it in councils, we will have made an excellent start. Councils have authority. When they set a bad example, it is easy for others to follow. Let us encourage them to set good examples, to let children do gardening and to let their own public-spirited residents remove out-of-date planning notices if they want to. The story of the knitted jerseys in particular illustrates reasonable risk prevention. It was not the fantastic bunting that was the issue, but the decision to suspend the bunting using tension wire. One can understand why a local authority may take issue with suddenly being famed for its leaning lamp posts, but a simple solution was to use a different type of wire.
Reasonable risk, communities coming together, enjoyment and celebration without frustration—that is what the Bill seeks to achieve. It is true that there are stories about councils banning activities on health and safety grounds that, on closer inspection, turn out to have more to do with the desire to publish a good story than with what might actually have taken place. But what does the story about the council that required a pancake race to be held at walking pace tell us about health and safety? It sounds much less plausible than the story about a killjoy council stopping children enjoying a donkey ride, but it is true—that actually happened—and it is not the only example.
In short, there is a culture of local authorities making decisions about events based on the over-enthusiastic application of a risk-averse health and safety culture. Those decisions have a real effect on people and our communities. We have a great tradition in our country of communities coming together to celebrate, have a good time and raise money for good causes while doing so. It is wrong for councils for no good reason to prevent community celebrations and events that draw communities together.
The problem is this: local authorities have become overly cautious in respect of health and safety; not in all cases—let me be clear about that—and not all over the country, but certainly on too many occasions. Where health and safety is used as an excuse to stop an event taking place, or to place restrictions on it, it is right that such decisions should be transparent and challengeable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood mentioned, and as I have made clear, the Bill does not seek to ensure that the very sensible health and safety regulations that apply to the workplace, to public areas, to our streets and to our recreation spaces are disregarded. Rather, we want to ensure that on the occasions when health and safety is used as an excuse to ban or restrict an event—when the application of health and safety concerns is over-zealous or disproportionate, or when the restrictions on the event are unreasonable, either by requiring a fee or restricting an activity—the authority must first justify its decision and then, if required, review it. That process should bring accountability to health and safety decisions and, in so doing, result in minimal recourse to seeking to review a health and safety decision.
The proposals are straightforward, sensible and proportionate. The Bill requires authorities to undertake certain actions when they ban or restrict events on health and safety grounds. In particular, it requires that if an authority decided to prevent an event from being held, or imposes restrictions or conditions on it, it must put the reasons for such a decision in writing, electronically or otherwise. That written notification of a ban or restriction must be sent to either the person who made the application or the organiser of the event if no application was made. The written notification must be sent on the day the decision was taken or, if that is not possible, the first working day thereafter.
The requirement to issue written notification extends not only to a ban that prohibits an event, but to restrictions that might be judged so unreasonable as to amount to a ban. If the person who made the application, or the organiser of the event, is unhappy with the authority’s decision to ban or restrict the event on health and safety grounds, they may request that the authority reviews the decision. The authority must complete an internal review as soon as reasonably practicable after it receives a request for a review and, in any case, within 15 days of receipt of the request, and on completion of the review it must give written notification, in electronic form or otherwise, to the person who requested it. The outcome of the review is that the decision may be confirmed, withdrawn, replaced with another decision or varied, but only varied so far as the decision could have been one reached in the first instance.
Local authorities are accountable to their electorates for the decisions they make, so it is not unreasonable for us to expect an authority to put its reasons for refusing or restricting an event on health and safety grounds in writing for the people affected. That is the sort of good practice that authorities should be following—many already do—in bringing transparency to their decision-making process. True localism is about embracing the wishes of local communities. The provisions in the Bill put in place a framework that will allow localism, and not a risk-averse culture, to flourish.
Briefly, on the role of the local government ombudsman, we consider that it is right that local issues should be resolved at a local level, without a member of the public needing to have recourse to a national body such as the ombudsman.
Mr Spencer
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he is in full flow, particular as he is agreeing with me so wholeheartedly, but I wanted to put on the record the fact that, as I am sure he recognises, most people who work in local authorities have the best intentions and want to support community groups, and it is only in a very small number of these cases that decisions need to be controlled and overturned.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He reminds me that I should have made it clear, for the benefit of all Members, that I am sure the Committee— the shadow Minister outlined her view that it should look at this thoroughly—will want to ensure that the Bill enables his wife, Mrs Spencer, to use health and safety measures quite widely to ban his internal cricket matches at home, which sound as though they may bring his cricketing judgment into question. I am sure that his family can deal with him appropriately when he gets home.
This Bill will ensure that local authorities do not make rash, unsubstantiated decisions. The provisions that require a local authority to set out its reasons for a decision, and allow a decision on health and safety grounds to be challenged, should lead to a more informed, sound decision-making process and ensure that matters can be resolved, where they should be so resolved, at a local level by local people accountable to their local communities.
However, if things cannot be resolved at a local level and the authority is at fault, it is right that the public have a right to redress through the local government ombudsman. I stress again that we are not changing the ombudsman’s remit. We are giving the ombudsman the ability to fast-track such investigations, at their discretion, so that where they do arrive at a decision that finds maladministration, the local authority is given the opportunity to review the decision to enable the event still to take place. The Bill therefore makes specific provision for the ombudsman to treat this particular class of complaint differently from other classes.
These provisions do not change how the ombudsman currently operates in relation to local authority complaints. We expect local authorities to comply with the recommendations of the ombudsman. The objective of the ombudsman is to secure, where appropriate, satisfactory redress for complainants and better administration for the authorities. If, following an investigation, the ombudsman determines that there has been maladministration in a local authority, the ombudsman can make recommendations for redress— for instance, an apology or payments of compensation —or recommend that the local authority undertake some remedial action or provide a service.
The ombudsman can already recommend financial settlements, where appropriate, to put right an injustice. The ombudsman recommends paying compensation in a very small number of cases. While the ombudsman has discretion in the remedies that are applied where a complaint has been upheld, a financial remedy is applied only where it is felt that this is the appropriate remedy to put right an injustice. It is true that the Bill’s provisions will allow the ombudsman discretion to award damages where it is not possible to reinstate an event. However, given the mechanism to accelerate a decision on health and safety grounds so that the local authority can still look to reverse that decision on review, it is highly unlikely that the ombudsman will need to seek recourse to this remedy. Indeed, I would go further and add that the threat of a remedy, including a financial remedy, should ensure that local authorities think very carefully about decisions on health and safety grounds.
As I have said, this Bill is as much about common sense, and changing the behaviour of local authorities in the way that a decision is arrived at, as about putting in place a mechanism for allowing a member of the public to seek redress when a decision is viewed as disproportionate and unreasonable. If we do this right, and the Bill goes through all its stages, its most vital aspect will be in changing people’s attitudes and getting us get back to trusting people to make decisions for themselves and their communities.
We consider that the provisions will perform a valuable function. It is right that if an authority takes a decision to stop or to impose restrictions on an event on the grounds of health and safety, it should put its reasons in writing. It is right that there should be an appeal mechanism where the decision is a negative one. It is right that the local government ombudsman should be able to fast-track complaints about such decisions, meaning that they can conclude an investigation before the event is due to go ahead and so facilitate that event. The provisions should put an end to the days of organisers being deterred from planning an event in the fear, or expectation, that some local authority official will not allow it. I therefore commend the Bill to the House as a common-sense, proportional measure.
Council Tax Banding
Debate between Mark Spencer and Brandon Lewis(10 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a valid and fair point, particularly regarding transparency. It would be useful for me to set out how the system works, how bands are assigned—which will help deal with the direct point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood—and what the taxpayer can do to challenge their banding.
In England, the main role of the Valuation Office Agency—or the VOA, as we all know it—is to provide the valuations and property advice required to support taxation and benefits. There are eight bands—A to H—and every single one of the 23 million properties in England that are subject to council tax is assigned one of those bands by the VOA. They are based on the open market value as of 1 April 1991, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
Each band has a range of values. For example, band D is for properties valued between £68,001 and £88,000 in 1991. That highlights that a property could have its value changed and still not change bands. It could be valued at £87,999 and be in band D, then it could be reassessed and revalued, and considered to be worth £70,000—more than a 10% change—but still stay in the same council tax band. That could be one reason why residents can see no change in band despite a review on value, but I shall come back to that.
The common valuation date of 1991 means that all properties, including newly built properties, are valued on a fair and consistent basis. That applies equally to all homes, regardless of general fluctuations in the property market since then. The banding system provides a link between the value of a dwelling and the level of council tax. Homes will vary according to a range of factors; some are obvious and some not so. If we think about the value of a property that any one of us may own, its age and size will all have an effect on the value, as might the level of modernisation and improvement. That can again lead to a variation in valuation between two properties that, at first glance, may look very similar— or, indeed, the same.
The VOA looks at the property details for a property, and then looks at sales that took place on or around the valuation date of 1991. Sales from around that time on comparable properties are the strongest indicator of value. As the bands cover a range of values, many different types and styles of property can fall in the same band. Equally, fairly similar properties can fall into different bands, depending on their value in 1991. For example, if the band level is £68,001, the property could be in a different band for the sake of being £10 or £15 apart in value, in theory.
When council tax was introduced in 1993, the Government of the day did not want to discourage people from improving their properties for fear of incurring additional council tax liability. Council tax is not, and should not be, a tax on home improvement or extensions, but such changes are taken into account when a property is sold. That is intentional and there are no plans to change it.
Mr Spencer
I am grateful for the Minister’s time and for his explanation. I hope that he recognises that I am talking about brand new properties on the same housing estate, built to the same set of drawings, using the same bricks and the same tiles—they are identical apart from the fact that they are 100 yards apart—that are in a different band. That is what is causing the frustration.
Brandon Lewis
I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I will turn to that specifically in a moment. Having said that, in various parts of the country, literally being a few yards apart on opposite sides of the road can make a difference in valuation, even for the same properties. I appreciate that that can be frustrating for residents, but it can have an impact—it is about the valuation. It is important to be clear about how the system works, as that will feed through to give a better understanding, enabling me to give a clearer answer to where we are and what my hon. Friend’s residents can do.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, there can be inconsistencies. Taxpayers can at times find themselves living in properties, new or old, that seem identical or even smaller than a neighbour’s that is in a lower band. The property has a different band level because improvements have been made to it, or there are changes that are not clear at first. Even if it is only because it is on the other side of the road, there can be a difference in valuation.
It is clear from my hon. Friend’s comments that he has called today’s debate because there is a specific issue around new-build properties for his constituents, who find themselves in a situation in which the bandings are different for similar or, as he outlined, effectively identical properties nearby. I can understand why that would be frustrating not only for them, but for him in his work to represent them.
If council tax payers believe that their band is incorrect, they can contact the VOA with their concerns—I appreciate that there is an issue with that, which I shall come to—and the VOA will review a property’s banding and amend it if the evidence suggests it is incorrect. While I am here on the record—this is not so much for my hon. Friend’s benefit—I want to be clear that council tax bandings can be challenged in two ways. First, the council tax payer has formal challenge rights in the first six months of either becoming the taxpayer of a property, or against a change made by the VOA, or where a material reduction in the value of the property or locality has happened since council tax was introduced.
When council tax payers do not have those formal rights, taxpayers can have their band reviewed by the VOA for free, if there is something to suggest that the banding might not be right. The VOA uses its statutory duty to maintain fair and accurate bandings as the means to provide a free banding review service, which applies to all occupiers, whether or not they have proposals rights.
I make that point clear because I know that some agencies out there—an increasing number of companies acting as agents—are promising council tax payers that they can get their bands reduced. I want to be clear: although some of those are charging up-front fees, I am keen for taxpayers to know that they can approach the VOA directly to challenge their banding. Full details are on the VOA’s website.
There is also the ability to have the case appealed to the valuation tribunal when the taxpayer and the VOA cannot agree. It seems to me, from the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, that that is where the crux of the issue in his area may lie. The valuation tribunal is independent from the VOA and will hear evidence from both sides before making a final decision. That can then be appealed to the High Court on a question of law, but that does not necessarily help the residents.
I say to my hon. Friend that after listening to what he said, he has outlined a potentially apparent inconsistency in the valuation tribunal decisions, rather than in relation to the VOA. I would like to invite him to come and see me, and I will arrange for him to have a meeting on behalf of his residents to look at that specific issue.
If there is an inconsistency, we want to make sure that that is driven out; if there is not, we want the residents to have a good understanding of why they have been banded differently. It may be for some of the reasons that I outlined in the past few minutes, about differences that are not necessarily apparent at first between properties. If there is an inconsistency, we can make sure we drive to the bottom of that and deal with it for my hon. Friend’s residents. I have also written to all billing authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to include the VOA contact details on council tax bills.
This is a complex system. It can be daunting and frustrating, as we have heard this afternoon. However, it is also very important. That is why I am so determined that we will ensure that it is as open and transparent as possible and why I very much welcome today’s debate and look forward to my hon. Friend coming and having a conversation with us about the specifics of his case.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Government Finance (England)
Debate between Mark Spencer and Brandon Lewis(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Brandon Lewis
I will explain shortly exactly how we are in touch with local government. The previous Government were so busy doling out grants without a care in the world—handing out money hand over fist in different bail-outs—that they failed to pay attention to local people and local authorities. By contrast, we are listening, learning and improving. We have received 200 written responses to our consultation on the provisional settlement. I have met individual authorities, leaders, chief executives and treasurers, and the LGA, London Councils and other representatives, and I spoke to about 200 councillors in a telephone conference call the day after the provisional settlement. Because we are listening, we are going to do more to support rural areas and manage the extra costs of delivering services in those areas.
As well as confirming the increases to the sparsity weighting and top-ups proposed in the provisional settlement, we have announced £8.5 million of additional funding for 2013-14 in a separate new grant for areas with the sparsest populations to get some extra help to achieve the efficiencies they want.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Will the Minister explain why Nottingham city council is increasing tax but cutting its library services while the county council is not putting up council tax but is keeping its libraries open, investing in its highways department and improving the county’s infrastructure?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that highlights how, with good leadership, a good Conservative-controlled county council is looking after its residents, while the Labour-controlled city council is simply lining its pockets.
Council areas such as Breckland, Mendip and South Lakeland will feel the benefit of the increased opportunities for rural areas in these changes, and I know Members representing rural areas will want to continue talking to us about the future over the summer.
Rural Bus Services
Debate between Mark Spencer and Brandon Lewis(13 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, who represents a constituency that illustrates how difficult the issue has been for rural areas. Norfolk is the third worst hit, but Devon has been the worst hit, with a 42% cut of £4.5 million.
The Campaign for Better Transport figures to be published later this week analyse figures requested from local authorities under freedom of information legislation and indicate that 74% of local authorities across England have decided to cut their bus budgets over the period 2011-12 to 2013-14. In Norfolk, to ensure that the cost of the scheme remains within the available budget, the county council has had to announce that it will discontinue most of the discretionary elements that it previously provided, including travel before 9.30 in the morning, the provision of companion passes, and travel all day, every day, for registered blind pass holders.
Norfolk county council’s need to meet the shortfall in future years puts subsidised routes, predominantly in rural areas, at risk. Campaign for Better Transport figures show that £36 million has already been cut from local authority funding for subsidised bus services, reducing funding across England from 2010-11 to 2011-12. In addition, more than 1,000 subsidised bus services have already been cut in the English regions. Rural communities will be the ones most affected by the loss of those services, as their Sunday or evening buses will disappear, bus frequency will be reduced and routes could disappear.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate; it is telling how many Members have turned up to participate. Does he recognise that the deprivation around former coalfields and the challenge of getting people in those areas to and from employment makes Nottinghamshire a special case?
Brandon Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Nottinghamshire’s funding has fallen by £1.7 million, or about 18%, so it, too, will feel the effect of the changes. He is absolutely right that people in rural areas of all sorts have problems with access to transport, whether they are young people looking for work or older people. Bus services can be their only way of leaving their rural community and accessing an urban area for shopping and everyday needs. That is why things are so difficult for rural areas, particularly in Norfolk. Some villages have low bus usage due to low population, yet buses can be a lifeline for people there who are without access to vehicles. They provide their only mode of transport and access to other areas.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point in the sense that the national scheme as it has been structured is effectively a bear trap left for this Government by the previous Government. Such a scheme is difficult to sustain and the issues surrounding it have opened up this debate, so that it has become a discussion about how concessionary passes operate. If we accept that a large contributory factor to the rural bus funding crisis is the increased cost of providing a concessionary fare scheme, we have to consider how that can be reformed.
It is absolutely right—I fully support this—that the coalition agreement insists that the Government will continue to keep the scheme. However, we need to find a way to fund it realistically for the long term. That means allowing councils to have enough flexibility to cover administration costs or offer innovative alternatives, some of which I, and colleagues, have touched on this morning.
Mr Spencer
Residents in Nottinghamshire, for example, may live close to the border of another county and may want to shop in Derbyshire, visit relatives in Yorkshire or travel to Leicestershire to gain employment. It is important that the scheme has the flexibility to allow such residents to move across county borders, so that they can gain access to relatives, employment or health services.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In Great Yarmouth, residents from Lowestoft and across the Waveney constituency use the James Paget hospital and need transport to get there. However, there is a difference between that and the use of public transport for tourism. Legislation does give some protection in relation to that, but the system is so complicated that it is difficult to differentiate in some cases between tourism use and required local use. Were we to pursue that in the legislation, it might force the Government to become too deeply involved in the detail of a local system’s provision.
We need to consider, or at least discuss, the potential for reform of the system, so that it is targeted on our poorest or most vulnerable pensioners. We also need to discuss whether the concessionary fare pass should be issued at 60 or according to the retirement age. If we do not have reform, concessionary passes could end up being worthless. For many pensioners in rural areas, having a concessionary pass is useful, but only if there is transport to use it on. Some bus operators have already made suggestions, such as having a flat-rate 50p charge. In some areas, concessionary pass holders are already being asked to pay a voluntary fee and a flat-rate charge per journey.