Localism Bill
Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2011.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Order. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements to make. I realise that many Committee members have not sat on a Public Bill Committee before. Until the Panel of Chairs decides that things should change, I had better continue with the established procedure: it has always been the case that the Government sit on the right-hand side of the room, and the Opposition on the left.
Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee sittings. Please will all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or switched to silent mode during Committee sittings? I am not going to be pompous and humiliate anyone if their mobile phone starts singing things, but if that happens, please locate the phone and switch it off, because it does get embarrassing.
As a general rule, my fellow Chairman—Hugh Bayley—and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I realise that some colleagues may not be entirely au fait with starred amendments, but if they want to see me privately with the Clerk, who basically tells me what to do, I should be more than happy to assist them. The required notice period for amendments in Public Bill Committee is three working days. Therefore amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for Tuesday. The deadline for the Tuesday meeting immediately following the February recess will be named nearer the time. There is a money resolution in connection with this Bill, and copies are available in this room.
As I say, not everyone on this Committee is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence. We introduced these procedures about three or four years ago—I cannot remember exactly when. We never used to have these evidence sessions. The reason they were introduced was that it was felt that it gave members of the Committee an opportunity to gather information from informed witnesses, and the end result would be that our Committee deliberations would be more informed. That was the theory.
The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, debate on which is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private before the oral evidence session; I hope that we can take those two motions formally. I must say to the Government Members that the Government Whip is normally here—that is Bill Wiggin—but I do not see him. We have the Opposition Whip here, but normally the Whips get together behind the scenes to decide how these things are done.
Assuming that the motion to sit in private is agreed to, the Committee will move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room, and our oral evidence session will begin. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence this morning.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
My apologies, Mr Amess, but when do we declare interests?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
At the beginning of the oral evidence session. These are the preliminaries before getting started.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Copies of memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Good morning, everyone. Before we start our formal proceedings and our witnesses introduce themselves, there are some technical matters that we need to deal with. Could I ask members of this Committee kindly to put their hands up—the Clerks will be recording all this—if they wish to declare an interest?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)
I am actually declaring the interests of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, because I have an indirect interest—he is my partner.
Jonathan Reynolds (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)
I am an elected member of Tameside metropolitan borough council.
Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, from which we are taking evidence this morning.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
In addition to my interests as recorded in the register, may I also declare non-pecuniary interests as chair of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, as president of the National Home Improvement Council and of Youthbuild UK, as vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association, and as honorary fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the Chartered Institute of Housing. Sorry about that.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Oh my goodness. I do not think anyone will be able to cap that.
Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)
I am an elected member of the Shenley Brook End and Tattenhoe parish council in Milton Keynes.
Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)
I am an elected Member of the National Assembly for Wales.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
I would like to draw attention to my interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
I am honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I think we have got those declarations of interest out of the way.
Welcome to our witnesses. I do not know whether any of you have given evidence to one of these Committees before, but members of the Committee understand that this may be a new experience for you. We hope that it will be a pleasurable one. The purpose of it is quite simply this: before the Committee starts its detailed consideration of the Bill, it wants to gather evidence from you to consider later in the proceedings.
Starting from the left, would our witnesses kindly introduce themselves and make a very brief opening statement?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Thank you. Colleagues, who would like to start the questions?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
May I pick up Mr Sawford’s point about whether the Bill will achieve its vision? Can you explain your concerns as to why it might not achieve that vision?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Mr Bradford.
David Ward (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)
Could I just—
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I do apologise. I should have said Mr Ward.
David Ward (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)
No, I am quite happy with being called Mr Bradford. Thank you very much; you have just written the heading of my next leaflet.
Taking that a stage further, I wonder if you have a general view on just how far this localism agenda can go without a substantial shift in the ability to raise revenue at a local level, as opposed to central Government grants being the preponderant amount of funding that authorities receive.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Any of the witnesses may answer.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I am delighted that lots of colleagues now wish to put questions. If needs be, this session can go until 11 o’clock.
Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)
I will direct this question at Neil McInroy because of something he said in his submission, but clearly the others may answer too. You talk about the negative unintended consequences that you are concerned the Bill will cause. Could you tell us a bit more about that?
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
Welcome, gentlemen. How do you think the provisions in the Bill could help to address the key challenge that many of us have experienced in our time in local government of attracting more strong community leaders to serve as councillors? Perhaps Mr Porter will respond first.
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
I wonder whether I could ask the witnesses for their views on the general power of competence. I must admit that I am struggling with it slightly, inasmuch as I cannot really understand what it will enable a council to do that it cannot do at the moment. Could you give me some examples of what you think that will enable?
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
I think I heard you say “trade properly”—to enable councillors to trade properly for the benefit of their community. I am very keen to have specific examples of what activities local authorities might be involved in that they are unable and prevented from being involved in at the moment.
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
Could you just say a few words about it?
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
Do you believe that the general power of competence gives you that legal certainty you require? You mentioned the legal problems you have encountered in the past, and I wonder if it is watertight in that respect. I see Mr Sawford is shaking his head. Perhaps he might want to say something as well.
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
May I just pick up the points about this power of general competence, which I would like to delve into a bit further? I was struck, Mr. Sawford, by your rather Maoist language about year zero. Is not the most important thing about the general power of competence that it sends precisely the signal you are looking for in signalling that change in central-local relations, which I know you have been advocating for some time? I hear the argument about the order-making powers, but in some ways, don’t you think that is a bit of a red herring? Clearly, there needs to be a legislative framework. It would be unsurprising if there were not order-making powers in the Bill, given that one can never predict all the circumstances that may accrue around the general power of competence. I am surprised that you seem to be saying, “Yes, I broadly agree with this,” when there are so many different caveats. Is it not a bit of a red herring that you are pursuing this line and saying, “Well actually, I don’t quite welcome it because we’ve got this order-making power”? Is it not pretty unsurprising that the Bill should have it?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
May I also ask Mr McInroy a question? I do not understand your position. Everyone would agree, and the think-tanks represented in this room would agree, that we have had 50 years of increasing centralisation of the system, and we now have a Localism Bill. However, Mr McInroy, you seem to be arguing that we should be taking a much more incremental approach—that we should be cautious and not take these initiatives that communities are demanding. Is that not a rather surprising position for you to take given the opportunity that the Bill presents? You are kind of arguing that we should pilot this and do that, whereas the policy environment demands a radical Bill that opens up the possibility for community rights of challenge existing in communities.
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
The Bill contains provisions relating to pay, transparency and accountability. Do the witnesses agree with those provisions in the Bill?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
In that case, may I ask a follow-up question? You are absolutely right about transparency over how public money is spent, so should the same principle not apply to the chief executives of the contractors contracting with local government?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
There are very important issues of transparency and accountability in the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, which logically should apply both to the chief executives of local authorities and to the chief executives of contractors. Do any witnesses disagree with that?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
But if I can press you on this, Mr Thomson, there is £38 billion of local government procurement. In the procurement process, would it not be right for local authorities to be able to ask questions in relation to the senior pay policy of the contractors with whom they are contracting?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
Mr Chairman, with your permission, I should like to ask a question on a separate issue—planning. Would it not be better if the national planning policy framework was put on a statutory footing, with sustainable development also being in the Bill? May I have the views of the witnesses on that?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
Would it not be preferable for it to be in the Bill? Is there any reason why it should not be in the Bill?
Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)
Councillor Porter, speaking from the LGA point of view and as a councillor, what do you think about the Bill’s changes to governance—allowing local authorities to look at going back to the committee structure if they wish, rather than having a cabinet structure? I am thinking about some of the comments that I have heard over the past few years from councillors, particularly back benchers on smaller authorities. Do you think that is a useful opportunity, and do you think that many councils will look to take that up, if that goes through?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)
Mr Thomson, in your opening remarks you commented that there were elements missing. Could I ask each member of the panel to say whether they think there are specific gaps in certain areas and specify them? When answering, could they consider the fact that, with this very large Bill, we are largely legislating unsighted, because a lot of it is in regulations, is out for consultation or is under review?
Eric Ollerenshaw (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
May I just ask about neighbourhood development plans, and how you see that working through the system?
Eric Ollerenshaw (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
Where would you draw that line?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Before moving on to Mr Raynsford, Miss Seabeck put questions to our witnesses, and she wanted a response from all of them. She only got a response from one, which was my fault. Please, can we hear the responses to Miss Seabeck’s question from the other three witnesses?
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)
On the housing and planning element within that, do you have any concerns that if the voices of the vulnerable—particularly in relation to housing allocation and, perhaps, involvement in neighbourhood forums—are not given any strength within this Bill, there is a risk they could be sidelined?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
May I pick up the law of unintended consequences and in particular relate it to the abolition of the pre-determination rule, which I think all of you welcomed? I am sure you would recognise that there must be limitations on what can be said by people who find themselves taking decisions in a quasi-judicial role. The Government have recently relieved the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of his responsibilities for apparently predetermining his view in respect of News International, and clearly that was with a view to the risk of judicial review. Will one of the unintended consequences be that central Government will no longer be the whipping boy, and that the legal profession may replace it? Local government may find itself uncomfortable with legal decisions that strike down decisions taken by councillors who believe they are acting in the interests of their area, but may have predetermined a decision.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
But were the Government wrong to relieve the Business Secretary of his responsibilities?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
No, but the parallel is very apt.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Does anyone else want to comment before we move on?
Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)
Councillor Porter, can I come back to you about the community right to challenge? Could you tell us what your members’ reactions are, and those from local government in general? Is it fair to say that some may feel threatened? Is it also fair to say that some of the more innovative ones see it as an exciting opportunity to reshape the services, bearing in mind the type of financial circumstances in which we are likely to be operating in the next few years?
Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)
May I press you a little further then, Councillor Porter? Could you give us an example of the sorts of services, should the legislation go through in the current form or a very similar form, that some of your authorities are looking at from the discussions they may well have had with communities?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
We will have to move on because there are still lots of colleagues wanting to speak, and I want to give the Ministers an opportunity to participate.
Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)
I am interested in taking us back to the question of the potential for returning to committees. Everyone who has been around long enough will remember that, back in the committee time, we also had a different source of payment for councillors. We did not have basic allowances or special responsibility allowances as we do now; we had attendance allowances. Do you think there is any real appetite in local government to return to that sort of regime—to get rid of basic allowances and return to people being paid by the fact that they signed a register in a committee when they come along?
Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)
Sorry, Chair. I have been involved in local government for 27 years, and I am not getting the feeling that there is a national clamour among councillors for a return to the committee system. I do not know if that is the case.
Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)
Yet the Bill is prescribing that some large cities should move to a mayoral system. Do you think that that is correct at the same time?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I am afraid that we will have to move on because many colleagues wish to speak.
Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)
Thank you, Mr Amess.
I just wanted to pick up on two of the points raised so far by other Members’ questions. Mr Sawford, when you were talking earlier about the general power of competence and expressing concern about the limitations based either on pre or post-commencement of limitations—you used the phrase “year zero”—I thought that you were arguing that there should not be statutory limitations on what local authorities can do. Are you really arguing that there should not be any at all? To give you an example, let us imagine the nightmare scenario that the BNP took control of a particular local council. Should there not be limitations at a national level on the kind of decisions that it could take regarding people’s rights to equal access to services? Are there circumstances in which the Government should limit what local authorities can do?
Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)
So you are actually arguing not for no limitations, but for a review of the existing ones?
Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)
Very quickly, I would like to pick up a point made by Mr McInroy. You said that you felt that the Bill was directed at certain kinds of communities that might take the agenda forward and that it was not relevant everywhere. In my own constituency, which is very diverse, my experience has been that there is an even greater desire in the deprived bits for the community to take control of its own destiny. What kind of places do you think would not be able to take up what the Government are offering through the localism agenda?
Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)
There is quite a lot of concern about the role of elected representatives—local councillors. The Bill offers the potential for changes in governance arrangements—be that going back to the committee system or going on to elected mayors—and new delivery mechanisms. What do you feel should be in the Bill? Is there a role for an enhanced scrutiny function? Even a council with a committee system form of governance could, as a way of beefing up the role of elected councillors, have a strong scrutiny function—perhaps stronger than in the past. So is there scope for that and, in particular, for new delivery mechanisms? I think the Bill is quite silent on that.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Colleagues, I still have seven people who have not yet put their questions, but we have very little time left. Will Stephen Gilbert, Henry Smith, Iain Stewart and John Howell put their questions very quickly? I will then call the three Ministers before we finish this part of the sitting at 11 o’clock.
Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)
Will you each please give me the top two implications from the Bill for housing policy?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Obviously the Bill deals with communities and democracy. Do you think that the concept of communities is too finely or too vaguely prescribed? This is a point that Mr McInroy was touching on in terms of the role of elected representatives in the interface with communities.
Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)
Do you believe the Bill gives communities sufficient time to raise funds to purchase assets of value, and are there any lessons that can be learned from the model that we have in Scotland?
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
The message I got from Mr McInroy and Mr Sawford was one of “not yet”, but I never heard when. That was particularly true for the case of decentralisation versus the economic situation, on which we believe that decentralisation can help, and that waiting for a perfect economic situation is a recipe for doing nothing.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
And now if each of those four questions could be answered by just one witness.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Who will respond to Mr Gilbert’s question?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Thank you. And who will respond to Mr Smith’s question?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
And Mr Stewart’s question?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Thank you for your co-operation.
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
We have had a fascinating session, and the questions have got to the heart of how radical this needs to be. Three of the witnesses have clearly said that we need to have a big change. Mr McInroy says that we should have a quantum leap, but through incremental change. It seems to me that if you are leaping a chasm, it is probably best not to do it in two steps. But really, this does go to the heart of it, because in the general power of competence, we are meaning to effect the constitutional change that Andy Sawford recommended. Changing the default from local government existing to do the things that the Government tell it to do, to the other way around—that local government can do anything unless the Government tell it not to—is the shift that I think Mr Sawford was recommending, so the question, as was picked up by Gavin Barwell, is: do you put no further safeguards or provisions in place at all? I see that a perfectly defensible and rigorous approach is to say that you completely change the defaults, and that local government can do everything and you just rely on the ballot box to vote out councils that do disgraceful things with their powers.
I have a concern. As much as I am attracted to extreme localism, there may be circumstances in which minorities in communities might be oppressed in ways that it is difficult to think of. Our thought, in drafting the Bill, was to provide some prospective protection—I am thinking particularly about minorities in these circumstances. The question then is, if you think it necessary to have some protection, do you set out in a schedule to the Bill what types of thing Parliament should be able to intervene on? I stress that it is Parliament, because these provisions would be enacted through statutory instruments that would come before Parliament, so it would have the chance to say what they should be. The judgment we came to—I am interested in the witnesses’ reaction to this—was that if we start to think about everything that could possibly need to be included, we would end up with such an exhaustive schedule that it would be very long, confusing and legalistic, and probably would not capture everything that needed to be addressed. Therefore, we are left with the status quo, which is continuing with the current—unsatisfactory in my view—constitutional settlement in which local government can only do what central Government dictate.
We have thought very hard about the question, and, advisedly, have come down on the side of having some residual protection, particularly for minority communities. However, it is better to allow Parliament to decide what the protections should be and make them explicit when it invokes them, rather than seek to anticipate a world perhaps decades from now. I am interested in the witnesses’ comments: if they think we should not have those protections, why are they confident that there will not be abuse, or, if they think that we should have an exhaustive list of areas where Parliament has the right to intervene, what should be on it?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Before the witnesses respond, did our other two Ministers want to put any points? Are you content?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I can see your steer. There was talk about needing more guidance on delivery mechanisms, which seems to suggest that local government does not have the ambition to exploit the Localism Bill. I challenge the panellists to say if they want more guidance or more localism.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I will be very brief. Is it not fair to put the Bill in the historical context of a state that many academic commentators have described as one of the most centralised in its attitude towards local government? Some of you might be broadly saying that you want to go further towards localism to give a general power of competence—albeit circumscribed to some degree—but with a power in clause 5(1) to remove restrictions by parliamentary order, or, equally, to move from capping by the Secretary of State to a referendum of the inhabitants of an area, surely that has to be a step change in moving away from the centralist inheritance.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Gentlemen, you have the final two minutes.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Sadly, I have no powers to extend this session, so I must halt proceedings. I am sorry. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses very much indeed for the time you have spent with us and the information you have been able to provide us with. Thank you very much indeed.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
May I welcome our next set of witnesses? Before we do the introductions for the next session, which is a short session of half an hour, do any members of the Committee wish to declare any interests?
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
In addition to the interests I mentioned earlier, which I hope will stand for all our sessions, I should say for this session that I am a resident Cheshire West.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
There is no need for anyone to repeat interests that they declared earlier. I assume that there are no new interests to be declared. Will our three witnesses, starting with Mr Burton, kindly introduce themselves? May I just say that members of the Committee fully understand that not all witnesses might be experienced in giving evidence, and we want this to be an enjoyable session? Will all our witnesses kindly tell the Committee who they are and perhaps make a brief statement of how they see the Bill?
Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)
I have a question first for Tony Burton, but I am obviously interested in what the other witnesses want to add.
Perhaps you could look at the community right to buy assets of community value. You have mentioned the Bill requiring
“disposal by public bodies on the basis of ‘best consideration’ to address the social and environmental value of assets”.
You have also mentioned having a range of people to nominate an asset of community value, including anyone capable of preparing a neighbourhood plan. I should like to ask you about that, but we have just heard Councillor Jones talk about a very disadvantaged community and it might be that some disadvantaged communities do not have the capacity to develop neighbourhood plans; there is a sense that they will be left out. Could you talk to us about those two aspects of changes you wanted to see in terms of that community right to buy an asset of community value?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Let us speed things up, because half our time has gone already.
Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)
Councillor Barrow, you said that you consult the local community on the housing that they want and on the housing that they need. Are those not conflicting things sometimes, and how does the Bill resolve that tension?
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
With two councillors here, I would like to ask a question about some of the cost implications for local authorities of the provisions contained within the Bill—whether it is the conducting of referendums, or the cost of putting together neighbourhood plans. Even in community asset transfer, there is a certain enabling role that may have financial implications for local authorities. How satisfactory do you find the provisions in the Bill on finance and the cost that you might incur, especially as we are in very difficult economic times? I am fully aware of the pressures your authorities will be under.
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
On the duty in the Bill for authorities to co-operate, do you think it is about right or could it be strengthened or weakened?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
While forcing through a localism agenda, of which I think we all approve, the Secretary of State is retaining 142 powers for himself. What are your views on that?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Mr. Ward—the Member for Bradford East.
David Ward (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)
Thank you, Chair. Any councillor worth his or her salt will have a plan, either formally or in their head, for their ward. Can you envisage conflict between elected councillors and others in the ward if sub-ward neighbourhood plans are put together that may conflict with the councillor’s views on what should happen in his ward?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
May I push you a little on the tension between the interests of the wider community and the interests of a particular locality? If we are considering, for example, the location for an unpopular facility—an incinerator or a hostel for a particularly difficult group of alcohol and drug abusers—what do you see as the right mechanism for resolving the inevitable hostility of the locality or neighbourhood when a proposal is made to locate such a facility in that area, and the responsibilities of the local authority to make provision for the needs of its area? How should that be resolved, particularly if the neighbourhood does not have a democratically elected body to represent it.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
But you said a moment ago that if your ideas about your own ward did not meet with local support, you would put those ideas in the bin.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
If your view as a councillor about the interests of the locality as a whole, rather than those of the individual ward, led you to believe that that was a necessary facility, would you put the idea in the bin if your ward did not like it?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
I was simply exploring the point. Third parties and developers may be interested in incinerators, but other interests may be involved in the location of a hostel for a particularly vulnerable group of people, who may not be a popular group.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
And the leadership role that you described may come into force there?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
I have a quick question for Mr Burton. You certainly thought that one of the potential weaknesses was that the community right to challenge would only be applicable or be more attractive in areas of high social capital or rural areas. Is it not the case that the Bill might facilitate the building of civic capacity in areas of higher social deprivation? I am thinking of part of an area that I represent in Sandwell in the west midlands, which has relatively high levels of deprivation. Will the provision in the Bill encourage capacity building in precisely those areas that require the building of new social capital? Do you see that as potentially a positive aspect of the provisions?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Does that speak to an emerging new role for local government to actually work in partnership, using some provisions in the Bill, in order to build capacity as well?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Before ending this session with questions from Ministers, I have two final questions from Nic Dakin and Jack Dromey.
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
My question follows Nick Raynsford’s about where this incinerator gets built, when nobody wants it in their local patch, for the understandable reasons that Councillor Jones described. How do we resolve such conflicts?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
The evidence is that it is not axiomatic that a deprived community has no capacity to innovate. In Castle Vale in my constituency, there is the remarkable Castle Vale community housing association, which is, arguably, the best of its kind in Britain. However, the evidence is also that deprived communities, by definition, find it more difficult to innovate without capacity, support and advice. Therefore, I want to ask about two related issues. The first is, specifically, about planning aid. Secondly, what other forms of advice and support do you think it would be appropriate for us to look at for communities to take advantage of the opportunities that are open to them in the Bill?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
A one-minute answer, please, because I want the Minister to ask a question.
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
On planning aid, what are your views?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Thank you very much. Finally, a question from the Minister.
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
May I just put a question to Mr Burton, who is representing civic societies and groups across the country? One question in the previous session was whether rights, such as the right to challenge, the right to bid for assets or the right to produce a neighbourhood plan, should be confined to democratically elected councillors. We have tried to create a space for other groups, including your members, to exercise such rights. How do you feel about our provisions?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
On behalf of the Committee, let me say that we realise that you have travelled a long way to be here this morning, and that it was a short session, but from the Committee’s point of view, it has been very worth while in terms of gathering evidence, so thank you very much indeed. Now could our next set of witnesses kindly take their places?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
On behalf of the Committee, I extend a warm welcome to our witnesses. I repeat that the Committee fully understands that our witnesses might not have given evidence before in such circumstances. I assure our witnesses that members of the Committee want to make you feel relaxed and want you to enjoy the session. Would all our witnesses kindly introduce themselves and make a brief statement on how they see the Bill? Let us start with Professor Jones.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Thank you very much, Professor Stewart. Mr Myers.
Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)
Professor Stewart, if I am paraphrasing you correctly, you say that there is a problem with community groups and whether they are accountable. Is not one of the advantages of what the Bill proposes that we will trust people to use their own responsibility in exercising their own power in their own community? Through the local authorities, we are re-empowering people through local elections; councillors will be that bit more responsible with the power that they get, and will have to be very aware of what the public think, because that might empower them at elections to exert that power in a way that, at the moment, has probably dissipated due to central control.
Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)
Can you say any more, or do you have any suggestions to assist that clarifying and codifying of the relationship between central and local government to make the Bill less centralist and more localist? In addition, will members of the panel comment on the restrictions on the general power of competence, and the fact that the Bill imposes mayors and shadow mayors on particular authorities? What do you suggest would make the Bill more localist? What do you think of those two specific aspects of the Bill?
Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)
My question was whether they should be imposed.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Half our time has gone already, and many colleagues are indicating that they want to ask questions.
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
I cannot let this opportunity with two eminent professors—I think that I counted 90 years’ experience between them—go without pursuing an earlier point, which was about the perceived tension between elected local members and community groups. How do you believe that that tension could be resolved? Do you think that community groups have a greater role in scrutiny of local government or in having decisions devolved down to make themselves?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
A quick question for Mr Myers and for Professors Stewart and Jones. Mr Myers, the Bill introduces measures relating to top pay, transparency and accountability for local government. Do you believe that the same principles should apply to the contractors with whom local government contracts?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
Why?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
But you have powers at the moment in work force matters, for example, in the procurement process.
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
Okay. Professors, as legendary visionaries with the capacity to predict the future, cast your minds forward 10 years. Who will benefit as a consequence of the changes to the planning regime?
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
The important group in the local community that we have not discussed yet is local business people. From my experience, their voice is often limited to a short meeting to gather their views on the annual budget, which is a statutory requirement of local authorities. I recall one case in which that was even done by e-mail. How could the provisions of the Bill address that?
Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)
I am interested because I take issue with that, as someone who was a local businessperson and became a councillor. The more we can develop a relationship between local authorities and those in business in the town, the greater we will encourage engagement in other ways.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Professor Stuart, in expressing reservations about community groups’ voluntary bodies and that such bodies might quite rightly hide the fact that they perhaps have a tendency to get out of touch with the wider community and to be dominated by one or two over-powerful people and so on, am I being unfair in saying that some community groups make exactly the same criticisms of some local authorities? I will not be invidious by naming any, but we have had examples of authorities dominated by one or two powerful personalities who are perhaps not as in touch with their local communities as they ought to be. Rather than putting the two in conflict, can any member of the panel suggest ways in which we could overcome such difficulties? If I might be a little provocative, election alone does not seem to be the answer, because such problems have arisen even in elected authorities.
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
But what would the Bill produce?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
We will put you down as doubtful.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
On that note we will move on, because Ministers will have the last questions to our witnesses.
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Mr Myers, you referred to the need for more entrepreneurial behaviour within local government. I think we would all agree that that is the next wave. Do you think there are elements of this Bill that will help to drive more entrepreneurial behaviour within local authorities? I think you said that there are some aspects of the Bill that you thought would.
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
So you do think that the general power of competence opens up opportunities?
Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)
I would like to go back to mayors. The Bill contains the power to merge the roles of mayors and chief executives. Could the witnesses comment on whether they think it will work, and if so, how it will work?
Eric Ollerenshaw (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood)
May I go back to something that Professor Jones said at the beginning? You referred to sub-local government entities, which I think was a disparaging remark. In my patch, a lot of people would regard sub-local government entities as the neighbourhood where they live, possibly where they send their children to school, although possibly not where they work. That is what they would define it as, but it does not always match the existing ward structure, or the town hall, which could be a long way away. For a lot of people in those neighbourhoods, the existing structures have not worked, which has been shown by the turnout in local elections. Perhaps this Bill does something to address that.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
May I ask Nic Dakin and Heidi Alexander to put your questions together and respond?
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
My question has already been asked and answered.
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Is it consistent with localism for the Secretary of State to retain 142 powers for himself?
David Ward (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)
On the general overview, I wondered whether you would comment on my view that the Treasury is reluctant to let go of the levers of control through central Government finance. The ghost of Derek Hatton is still with us, in that the Government will not trust the electorate to get rid of a bad council. Do you think that that is a view behind the centralism Bill we are looking at?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
I sense that we have reached the point that we have been waiting for with great anticipation: the unleashing of our witnesses on our Ministers.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
Obviously, from my point of view, it is extremely important that we have a Localism Bill with more freedoms. I was a bit puzzled by the evidence that we heard from the two professors. On the one hand, they want fewer prescriptions from Ministers but, on the other hand, they think that a duty to work with community groups should be imposed on local authorities. What we thought we had established was a right for community groups to insist on their role in their neighbourhoods and communities. I am interested to see exactly what you think the balance of that relationship should be.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
On what basis do you say “any old group”? Cannot some of these community groups have every bit as much legitimacy as other bodies? Does not devolution go beyond the doors of the town hall?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
It might, I suppose, suggest that we have a dichotomy between two sets of witnesses. One set has a glass-half-full view of the Bill, as Mr Myers and Dr Keohane think that it is broadly going the right way, although there are bits with which they disagree. The professors have a view that the glass is very much half empty, however, because they say it is all terribly centralistic and that it will end in grief and woe. If we are saying that a decision on the neighbourhood plan is ultimately taken by a vote of the community in that area, that is hardly giving powers to any old group, is it, Professor?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
May I interrupt to allow the Secretary of State to ask the last question?
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
You have promoted me, Mr Amess. I have got off to a good start.
May I ask one brief question about the general power of competence? Do you think that there should be no prospective opportunities for Parliament to circumscribe its use, or that there should be certain circumstances for that which are defined in advance—and, if so, what should they be?
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
Why does it need to be a Bill rather than a statutory instrument?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Sadly, I must call a halt to this particular session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our four witnesses very much indeed for their time and the information that they were able to share with us.
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
On behalf of the Committee, I welcome our final set of witnesses this morning. As I said to the other witnesses, you might not all be familiar with our proceedings and might not have given evidence at such a session before. I assure you, however, that the Committee is only trying to get information from our witnesses and to make the session as valuable as possible. I should like our witnesses to introduce themselves and kindly make a comment about the Bill.
Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)
I would like to ask Simon Watson—although, obviously, other witnesses can comment—about the concerns that you have just expressed about the possible impact of the community right to challenge on service quality. You talk about having a vision of empowering service users and people living locally to work alongside front-line staff, but you clearly have concerns about the community right to challenge. Will you tell us more about that?
Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)
I cannot resist the temptation to engage in this line of argument, so forgive me, Mr Amess, that this is not the question that I was going to ask. What is to stop that happening at the moment? Does not the Bill put in place a right for communities to challenge a contract—they do not currently have that right—whereas the perverse outcome that you are talking about involving procurement exercises could still happen at the moment? The Bill actually gives communities something that they do not have. Of course, under procurement rules, there is the potential for the outcome you have outlined, but that is no different from the status quo ante.
Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)
No, it has an effect, because it brings in the right for communities to challenge on procurement, which is something that they do not have at the moment.
Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)
I think that that is a negative interpretation.
Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)
Sir Simon, do you share that view?
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
I suspect that we could go on with that debate for many hours, so I would like to ask Sir Simon a direct question about a referendum, particularly in a London context. I know you touched on it in your introductory remarks. Have you made any calculation of what such a referendum on a London-wide basis would cost to conduct? If you have, do you think that is a good and appropriate use of public money?
Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)
I have a question for Mr Watson and a different question for Sir Simon and Mayor Pipe. To Mr Watson, you were talking about the parts of the Bill that deal with council tax referendums and you claimed that they were so complex that they essentially equated to capping. Can you say a little bit more about why you believe that to be the case?
To Sir Simon and Mayor Pipe, I want to talk about mayoral development corporations and the wording of the legislation in that respect because clearly in London there is an issue that Mr Raynsford raised in the Second Reading debate about localism and which authority you are devolving to. The Bill as drafted says that the Secretary of State must by order establish a corporation that the Mayor has designated, and that the Mayor has to have regard to comments made in the consultation. Do you believe that that is a strong enough safeguard to a local community that might feel very strongly that it does not want the Mayor to designate such a corporation?
Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)
Surely, if an authority wanted to have a significant council tax increase in its medium-term plans, it would only include it in those plans if it had confidence that it would win a referendum—if it had sampled public opinion and was confident it could make the case to its residents. You would not include something in your plan unless you had reason to believe you had a prospect of getting it through.
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Could Sir Simon and Mayor Pipe say a little more about their concern about delegation of fines? Will Mayor Pipe also perhaps say a little more about his concern about planning?
Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)
I want to ask Mr Watson a question. I want to go back to the right to challenge. He called it privatisation and suggested that a large housing association from elsewhere might want to run the housing stock in a local authority area. However, do you not accept that there is a procurement process that would potentially open that sector up so that others might well bid, and that your position is opposition for opposition’s sake? It would prevent any local authority from tapping into the expertise, interest or capacity that exists in the community in following that process through.
Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)
Mr Watson, you mentioned where local authorities have the power to do it, but it is about when they choose not to use that power. Does not that come back to the point I made about the expertise, interest and capacity of the community, which a local authority may not choose to tap into?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
May I ask Simon if he will say a little about the third issue he highlighted in his comments—standards? Slightly maliciously, may I also ask him why, in the context of a Bill that abolishes regional spatial strategies, the Mayor of London should continue to have substantial planning and housing powers at a larger than local level?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
This is actually on the same point. I think most people agree that the London mayoralty is perceived as a success in representing matters relating to London strategically. Do you think that that model could also benefit cities such as Birmingham?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
On that point about powers, do you think that the same spatial level applies?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
The London Mayor made some welcome steps in the right direction on the living wage. Chapter 6 of the Bill demands transparency and accountability in relation to top pay in the public sector. Do you believe that there is a case for that to be the pay policy as a whole, including internal relativities and the importance of a living wage?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
I am sorry to interrupt you, but you have acted on top pay, which is welcome, but as a matter of policy you have also acted on bottom pay—I don’t like using the phrase—the pay of those at the bottom of the pay structure, including the notion of the living wage.
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
Should a pay policy not address that?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
Are there any moves on that?
Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)
Do you believe that the same principles of transparency and accountability applied in chapter 6 should also be applied to the contractors with which local government contracts?
David Ward (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)
You have been accused of predetermination. Can I ask you about community assets? Do you share my concern that the inclusion of privately owned property on lists of community assets could represent an infringement of personal property rights?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
If there are no further questions from colleagues, our final questions will be from Ministers.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
On that last point, in such a situation, that ability would not be unhelpful for the faith group or the community it represented in the broader community.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Mr Watson, may I be quite clear? Are you saying that Unison has an objection in principle to the idea that community groups—a voluntary or community body, a charity, a parish council, the employees of the authority and people like that—should have the right to challenge and to take on the running of a service provided by the council, if they think they could make a better stab at it?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
Isn’t an open procurement process more likely to get value for money?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I am trying to get a sense of whether you have an objection to challenge in itself.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I will leave that bit there. Let us come on to Simon and Mayor Pipe.
On EU infractions, do either of you dispute the legitimacy of the principle that paying for an infraction should fall on those who are responsible for the infraction? But you have an issue as to the methodology of finding out and determining who that person is—is that the nub of it?
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
You are saying that if you were responsible and couldn’t do anything about it that would be one thing, but if you were responsible and could do something about it then it’s probably pretty just under such circumstances that you should pick up the bill.
Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
I understand your point.
The final thing I was going to ask, gentlemen, is on the London package, which is broadly agreed, and the safeguards in relation to MDCs. Do you accept that any discussion about consultation and so on must be in the context of the Mayor being the person with the statutory responsibility for the economic strategy of London?
Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)
Again, on behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses very much indeed for the time you have spent with us this morning. We are very grateful.
This afternoon Mr Bayley will be chairing proceedings.
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
We now have to hear oral evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter, the National Housing Federation, Brent Private Tenants Rights Group and the Tenant Services Authority. I would like to welcome our five witnesses, and I invite you to each introduce yourselves for 30 seconds or so. We do not want to hear everything you have to tell us, because we have an hour to question you, but just give us a couple of headlines on where you are coming from.
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
Can I ask you to be brief?
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
I think, Jacky, I am going to switch you off there. I know that you are all keen to get your message across, but there will be plenty of opportunity when we come to questions. Finally, Anthony Mayor—or Mayer. I beg your pardon.
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
Very good.
Thank you all for the introductions and the headlines. I invite colleagues to indicate to me that they wish to ask a question. I shall first call Barbara Keeley. Other colleagues are also trying to catch my eye.
Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)
Will those members of the panel who want to do so expand their views on tenure reform? If someone has to move out of social housing, if and when their circumstances improve, what impact will that have on any aspect of their tenancy or anything else? I am asking about the aspect of tenancy reform under which people would have to move out.
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
You do not all have to answer every question.
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
I should remind everyone that 15 of our 60 minutes have already gone. Colleagues might, therefore, want to ask questions of a particular panellist, rather than necessarily of the whole panel.
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
We just had a question from Barbara Keeley about lifetime tenancy agreements and perhaps ending them for new entrants to social housing. Is there a case for ending lifetime tenancy agreements to ensure the availability of a flexible housing mix? For example, when children leave home, if we did not have a couple in a three or four-bedroom house, perhaps the housing stock could be used more effectively. I am interested to hear views on that.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
May I pick up David Orr’s comment about the overriding importance of supply? May I ask all of you whether you believe that the measures in the Bill, as currently drafted, will have the effect of increasing the supply of housing overall and the supply of affordable housing for people in need? Will it improve or not improve the prospects of people looking for housing because they are homeless or badly housed?
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
Nick has asked the whole panel, so you will all have to concentrate on every issue. Campbell, do you want to go?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
May I ask Mr Capie specifically about some of the planning provisions in the Bill? The Bill tries to solve the problem that you raised about the number of houses that we need to build. Is it not the case that we have not had a particularly great track record of building new homes in this country in the past 15 years? Do you think that one of the reasons behind that was the regional spatial strategies and our regional planning system, which was very good at producing strategies, but not very good at producing the homes?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
We know how that framework operated historically, so would it be madness for us to continue to pursue the same policy, because it did not work?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
So you accept that the removal of regional strategies—
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
I was not making that point.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)
My question is in two strands, but it is specific to a group—vulnerable adults, families, and 16 and 17-year-olds. How confident are you that the Bill, as it stands, has safeguards to protect those groups when they present as homeless? Is their voice strong enough, if and when they become tenants? Are there weaknesses in relation to their voices? Perhaps Anthony Mayer has a view on that.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)
On the general point about vulnerability.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
Picking up that point, the alternative we have at the moment is that homeless families are kept in temporary accommodation, often for very long periods, particularly in London. Is there any viable way of avoiding that, which does not go down the route we have outlined?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
So, you are making the point about not the transfer into the private sector but the quality of the accommodation. Have I understood that correctly?
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)
I would like to continue this discussion on the private rented sector and the discharge of duties into it. In your opinion, what capacity do you think the sector has at the moment to cope with additional demand? What, in your view, will that additional demand do to rent levels in the private rented sector? I was particularly struck by Mr Orr’s comments towards the end, about the interplay with housing benefit, because the Government are telling us that by reducing housing benefit, they are hoping that private sector rents will decrease, yet we might see huge additional demand, and I would appreciate your comments.
Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)
I have two questions in one, in a sense. Mr Orr, when you were speaking earlier about new houses in the regional spatial strategy, to my mind you were effectively arguing for the status quo and arguing that allowing local communities to design might not lead to any house building—but certainly not enough. Bearing in mind that we had some evidence this morning from councils and the LGA who were telling us that local communities know what they need and want to build it, but they want the right thing in the right place, are you arguing for the status quo or another option?
The second question relates to that and is addressed to anyone on the panel. As a result of what the Government are proposing, do you think there would be an increase in house building beyond the last couple of years? The lack of house building is not just a feature of the last year or two during the recession; it has characterised the past 10 years. That goes way beyond the recession, despite what has been mentioned. Do you think there will be an increase in house building on these plans, or do you have another option?
Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)
So if the current plans were, in a sense, to work, do you think increasing numbers of houses would be being built?
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
I think I am going to move on, otherwise some of the Members will not get in.
Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)
We all know that at the moment local authorities may discharge their duty to the private sector when the family agrees that it is a good idea, and for some it is. What worries me are not the most vulnerable groups, but those families that are more mature and in work but are forced into the private sector, where giving up employment is likely to have an impact. Does the panel have any views about the interaction between housing benefit and families in work?
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
Jacky, I ask you to be brief, because I need to force the pace.
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
I have a couple of quick questions, one for David and one for Campbell. David, I can understand why your members might be resistant to the idea of being banned from giving lifetime tenure, but given that the proposal is to give them that as an option, why should you, representing the federation, not want them to have that option? Do you not trust them to exercise it?
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
So the discretion should not be forced on them, but it should be one of the options available?
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
That clarification is helpful.
I thought that, in David and Campbell, I had found the last two people in Britain who were going to argue that we should keep the RSSs, but David has explained that that is not the case. Campbell, are you the last man standing? Do you think that we should keep the RSSs?
Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)
So it is about what the right reform is, but there is no one here who thinks that we should leave the RSSs intact.
Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)
On the private rented sector, I represented a ward in Gateshead for 27 years that has about a third of its property in the private rented sector, so it is something that I am quite familiar with. I see a particular problem where a number of properties may have been bought recently for a buy-to-let process, and I cannot see any mileage in terms of rents coming down, because, from my understanding, mortgages have not depressed massively in the recent past. How will landlords manage to bring rents down if they are determined to keep a particular level of rent in order to pay the mortgage? That is the first question.
The second question is that if we are expecting people to move on after a couple of years of tenancy if their circumstances change, how will landlords monitor how those circumstances have actually changed in the first place?
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
Inevitably, I am in an impossible position. We have six minutes left. Alun Cairns is indicating. We have one question from each of the Front Benchers, so I am afraid, David, that I will have to leave you out.
Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)
I shall express my questions to Mr Robb in the first instance. Given some of the areas of criticism of the Bill as it stands, is it not fair to say that they are in relation to distinct aspects rather than totality in its various elements? We have just been talking of housing management. Would you not accept that housing management is extremely important in terms of bringing about some of the positive changes, and therefore another part of the Bill would allow an organisation such as Shelter to express an interest in running elements of the housing department and taking over some of the management from the local authority? Do you not think that that would be a positive overall influence? My second question is, what evidence is there—
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
Alun, I hate to do this, but if you go to two questions, there will not be time for answers.
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
If people will forgive me, I will turn to Alison Seabeck for a question.
Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)
We have heard in this and other sessions the concerns about revenue streams coming in, particularly to housing associations, as a result of changing tenure and rent levels. We also heard concerns about development and whether it will happen, because of the proposals in the planning element of the Bill. Are you picking up any concerns at all from lenders, as a result of some of the areas of the Bill that seem not to relate to each other and, generally, are slightly destabilising?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
What I have heard, particularly from David, is that revenue subsidy works, a belief that rents in the private sector will stay high and a belief that the tenure reform package is optional. So, why do you believe that the affordability and social housing programme can’t be delivered? It is there, isn’t it?
Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)
I thank all the witnesses for sharing their experience and knowledge with us. I apologise to them and members of the Committee for cutting them off in their prime, but under our rules the clock stops for no one. I again thank the witnesses for giving evidence to us.