Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential role of mediation in reducing the number of court cases.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

The Government have put in place an extensive awareness strategy, and we believe that the more people can attend mediation, the more significant the impact will be on reducing the number of applications made to court. We have increased the legal aid budget for family mediation. There are data about the amount of mediation that takes place, but we cannot tell specifically who has attended mediation rather than gone to court.

[Robert Neill]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he agree that mediation is well established in the commercial law field and growing in the family and matrimonial law field, but that we are perhaps missing a trick in two areas? The first is in ensuring that more use is made of mediation in land compensation and related planning disputes. Will he meet me to discuss whether the Bill on High Speed 2 gives the Government an opportunity to promote that and to create greater awareness among fellow Departments, and—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Simon Hughes

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. Obviously, we will consider any constructive suggestions, as we have made clear. It is worth bearing in mind that the presumption enhances a plan-led approach. Indeed, the significance of up-to-date plans is strengthened under our proposal, which I note that another eminent QC described in the planning encyclopaedia as an “excellent piece of work”.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

16. What steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to develop landlord accreditation schemes for the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement.

Localism Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Simon Hughes

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I am disappointed in the hon. Lady’s response, because I thought that we had got a good deal of the way down the track to meet what were sensible concerns. There is a difference between recognising that the establishment of a mayoral development corporation is part of the outworking of London-wide policy, in which the Mayor will have to have regard to the strategic economic and developmental interests of the whole city, which may be different from the individual interests of a single local authority, and recognising that the assembly is the body that this House has already charged with holding the Mayor to account for the way in which he exercises those powers.

There is a difficulty with giving a veto to an individual London borough, because the borough’s interests are very properly not required to be strategic in the same way as those of the Mayor and of the assembly. Often they are, in fairness, and I do not mean to diminish the importance of the London boroughs. As the hon. Lady knows, I spent 16 years as a London borough councillor before spending eight years on the London assembly. That may indicate precocious sadness on my part, but that is a different matter. Both bodies fulfil very important functions, but they are different functions, and, if we are rightly going to put a check and balance on the Mayor’s exercise of his strategic role, we must do so through the assembly—the elected strategic check and balance. The boroughs have an important role in this because the Mayor is required to consult them, among other bodies, and they therefore have a powerful tool in being able to raise their concerns and to lobby their borough elected representative on the assembly to ensure that their case and their voice is heard.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Our colleagues on the London assembly are supportive of the Government’s amendments and new clauses, as are my London colleagues and other colleagues in this place. Let me seek clarification on one thing; I hope that I might catch the Speaker’s eye later to speak on the substance of it. If the Mayor were to set up development corporations in London, would there be any changes in the planning processes in those areas that took democratic control away from the elected councillors? That was controversial under the old urban development corporations set up by the Conservative Government when Lord Heseltine was the relevant Secretary of State.

[Robert Neill]

Yes, the corporations could act in that way. They do not have to, because we have not been as specific as was the case in the past with the old-style development corporations as to exactly what they have to include. The likelihood, it is fair to say, is that they would, because part of the objective of a development corporation generally is to bring the development function and the planning function for a particular area together to speed up development. In practice—I hope that this will reassure my right hon. Friend—the east London MDC that was proposed for the Olympic park area has been involved an iterative process, with a degree of discussion between the Mayor and the five London boroughs affected. There has been some negotiation, which is probably a mature thing to have in the current circumstances. The upshot is that we now have a proposal to which the Mayor and the London boroughs are satisfied they can sign up. The boroughs accept that they cede some planning power for a period, but now do so by agreement with the Mayor. I think the same process can be achieved in other cases.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, for two reasons. First, the power to set up the corporation is devolved, and a directly elected regional figure, in the shape of the Mayor, takes that decision. Secondly, there is the veto, which did not exist in relation to the other, earlier-style development corporations. There is therefore a significantly enhanced degree of accountability.

[Simon Hughes]

I heard what the Minister said about the discussions that have been going on in east London between the Mayor and the local authorities. If, for example, the current Mayor or any future Mayor had the further idea that there should be mayoral development corporations south of the river, would that, of necessity, require him to have the agreement of the local authority or authorities in question if they had a different view, given that there could be a conflict? Co-operation is fine, but a difference of view that means that the local authority’s views are disregarded is not so fine.

[Robert Neill]

In theory, a Mayor could seek to disregard a local authority’s views, but in practice we reckon that the new clause makes that unachievable. There are two reasons for that. First, the Mayor will have to consult the local authorities, which will have registered their objection. As with any public law decision, he has to behave in a way that is rational and reasonable within the terms of the Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation case. Secondly, because of the electoral arrangements in London, the local authority would be well placed to ensure that a blocking majority was created in the assembly to prevent the policy from going through. There is a theoretical possibility that the Mayor would be able to create the sort of rogue corporation that one might be concerned about, but in reality it is pretty much inconceivable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Neill and Simon Hughes

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are talking about redundancy costs, so we must get on with it.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I gather that in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £200 million for the capitalisation cost of redundancy payments. I also gather that local authority chief executives and treasurers suggest that the costs might be between £1.5 billion and £3 billion. If they are correct and the Government estimate is much lower than the actual sums involved, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Robert Neill]

Capitalisation, which enables local authorities to treat revenue expenditure as capital and borrow for it is an exception to the accounting rules, so there has always been a need for some control, and capitalisation for a number of streams has never run at 100%. It is also worth bearing in mind that local authorities have been aware for some time that reductions in expenditure were inevitable—they were planned by the previous Government. A shrewd authority will therefore have planned to deal with the problem in advance.

Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Debate between Robert Neill and Simon Hughes

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Two points arise from the hon. Lady’s question. First, it is scarcely appropriate, if we believe in trusting locally elected representatives, for Ministers to seek to micro-manage the negotiations. The people involved, at the London level, on both sides of the dispute are mature and experienced people, and I hope that they will be best placed to resolve it. Secondly, the issue of the dismissal notices sometimes arises in industrial relations disputes. It has not happened in the context of the fire brigade before, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) observed, this situation did not arise suddenly, but at the end of a protracted five-year negotiation. I am not saying what tactics the parties should use, but the lengthy context has to be borne in mind.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

As somebody who has in their constituency the London fire brigade headquarters, three fire stations and a fire training centre, and who has met both management and the unions in the past fortnight, may I ask that the message be passed on, first, that most fire officers are really keen that there be a resolution, because they do not want to go on strike, and secondly that on the shift patterns, there is not much objective distance between the management and the unions? It should be capable of resolution. I want to add my voice to those who say that there is a way forward by negotiation rather than this clearly unwanted industrial action, which would affect the whole city.

[Robert Neill]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is perhaps significant that the management side adjusted its offer and was prepared to change, to some degree, the extent of the alteration of the hours to reflect earlier discussions. I hope that that will be the spirit in which the negotiations are taken forward.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Debate between Robert Neill and Simon Hughes

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but rather than regard that point as fatal to the Bill’s future progress, the right approach is to say, as I will in relation to other matters, that I hope the Bill’s promoters will discuss with officials in the relevant Departments how they might seek clarification and improvements. I am grateful to him for highlighting that matter.

Similarly, we have to ensure that there is fairness in relation to the provisions in clause 8 for pavement charges. I understand the argument behind the clause, but equally we must ensure that an undue burden is not placed upon small local shops. We need to ensure proportionality.

[Simon Hughes]

May I reinforce that point clearly? The danger is shown in the service charges for people who have bought their property from the local authority, which we all know about. They end up being far higher than anybody ever envisaged, even though they are technically “reasonable” in law. The ability to deal with what is called “street furniture”—tables and chairs—is important, but within limits it should be permitted wherever possible. We need to ensure that local authorities do not give themselves powers that prevent cafés and restaurants from allowing people to sit outside, which is often much healthier than sitting inside.

[Robert Neill]

I have enjoyed sitting outside the occasional premises myself in the past, and the hon. Gentleman is right. It is entirely a question of getting the right balance, and I hope that we can do that with some good will as the Bill makes progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed, through the localism and decentralisation Bill, to giving a wider range of general powers—for example, a power of general competence—but equally, it will sometimes be more appropriate and proportionate to give more specific flexibilities, such as those in the Bill. Both approaches can be part of the mix.

May I turn to the issue of entertainment involving nudity, which is addressed in clause 23? When the measure was considered in the House of Lords, the previous Government argued that it should be deleted. Clause 23 would amend the Licensing Act 2003 to allow local authorities greater powers to regulate lap-dancing clubs by allowing them to impose clauses on premises’ licences to prohibit entertainment involving nudity. That, I believe, is motivated by the concern that their powers under the 2003 Act are insufficient to allow them to prevent lap-dancing clubs operating within their area, or within certain parts of their area, or to regulate the nature of the entertainment provided within lap-dancing clubs.

When the measure was considered in the House of Lords, the previous Government sought its deletion because at the time, they were seeking the views of local authorities nationally. As a result of that consultation, they introduced legislation. Section 27 and schedule 3 to the Policing and Crime Act 2009 amended the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to allow local authorities the power to regulate lap-dancing clubs as sex establishments. This provides local authorities with much greater powers than those provided by the Licensing Act 2003, and those that would be provided by clause 23.

In opposition, we broadly supported the amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as they went through Parliament, and we remain supportive of those measures, As such, we believe that it would improve the Bill if clause 23 were deleted. It could complicate the licensing framework in London, and possibly undermine the new legislation in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Given that since the London Local Authorities Bill was introduced Parliament has introduced national legislation to deal with the same issue that clause 23 seeks to address, it is no longer necessary and Home Office Ministers may well seek to have it removed. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will reflect on that point as the Bill progresses.

[Simon Hughes]

I hope that that point will be accepted by the sponsors and that we end up with a regime that gives discretion on whether to allow nudity or partial nudity without taking too puritanical a view. However, often the problem is not that people are appearing in the nude, but that some of them were pressured into the job by being trafficked. That is the issue, not whether adults should be able to go and see what they want to see in licensed premises, which should clearly be permitted where possible.