Localism Bill

My Lords, we now return to the debates which we had the other evening in Committee on the new extension of community empowerment through the role of referendums. Perhaps I may begin by returning to Tuesday evening and the brief discussion that we had right at the end on the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Greaves. He asked—and I called it a conundrum—why a petition signed by 5 per cent of the people calling for a referendum should prevail over a petition signed by 10 per cent or even 20 per cent against one. At first reaction, and at that late hour, it appeared a complex question. I have since reflected on the issue. It seems complex because it is founded on what I might describe as a false premise—that is, that having a referendum is in itself the final decision on an issue. It is not. Having a referendum is merely a way of opening the door to obtaining the views of local people. In the particular circumstance described by my noble friend, there is clearly a difference of view among local people; and where a number of people—we think 5 per cent is about right, as we discussed on Tuesday—want to have that view tested in a referendum, we think that they should be allowed to do so. So my short answer to my noble friend's conundrum is simply this. If 5 per cent want the issue tested in a referendum, then we believe that it should be tested. That is not denying choice to others. They can express their view in the referendum. As I made clear in my response to all this, it is within the defined scheme; and that is that unless there is a petition, the full council must agree to hold a referendum; and where there is a petition, the council must hold it if it meets the appropriate tests on costs, appropriateness, and duplication, which we will discuss in this group. These tests enable local authorities to exercise discretion and not to hold a referendum. Now I turn to these government amendments, to which I alluded the other evening and which I think greatly help this debate to go forward. Government Amendments 120A, 120D, 120F, 121A, 126G, 128E, 128F, 128G and 129J all deal with the issue of the grounds for an authority to decline to hold a referendum, notwithstanding the receipt of a petition with the requisite number of signatures. These amendments address concerns raised during the passage of the Bill in another place that local referendums could be very costly or otherwise inappropriate. Such concerns were also expressed by the Greater London Authority and Transport for London. Members in another place also expressed concern that the Secretary of State exercising his power in Clause 47 to specify matters that need not trigger a local referendum could result in a council rejecting a valid petition for a referendum on a manifestly local matter. Having considered these concerns, the Government accept that, in line with our localist agenda, removal of the Secretary of State's power of specification in Clause 47 will not remove any necessary protections in the referendums scheme. If the amendments we have tabled are accepted, councils will have the power to determine whether a referendum should be held in difficult cases. There are circumstances in which a referendum could be inappropriately expensive for a council or could cut across or effectively duplicate other statutory consultation processes for which there is also a statutory right to review or appeal. This would include planning applications. We therefore propose to remove the power of specification in Clause 47(5) and replace it with provisions that give councils increased flexibility to decline to hold a referendum in special cases. Those cases, defined as ““special case petitions””, are where: first, the cost of holding the referendum would be more than 5 per cent of the council's council tax requirement for that year; the referendum matter has been the subject of a previous referendum within the previous four years in that area; or the referendum relates to a matter subject to other statutory consultation processes for which there is a right to review or appeal. I have already given the example of planning applications. These provisions reflect our view that councils should be able to refuse referendums that are unduly costly or are on substantively the same issue as a previous referendum. They also reflect our view that the mechanism for local referendums should not duplicate or cut across existing statutory processes. Where it is proposed that a referendum should be held across the whole of London, we want to be sure that the matter is truly a pan-London issue—as I explained the other evening to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. We therefore propose a requirement that for a petition to be eligible for such a referendum, in addition to the 5 per cent threshold of London-wide signatures it should have the signatures of 1 per cent of the electorate in each London borough. This would prevent a situation where a matter of vital importance to just one part of the capital might attract a very large number of signatures to a petition—enough to reach the 5 per cent threshold across London—yet would be more appropriate for a referendum in the London borough or boroughs where the affected citizens live. I hope noble Lords will agree that these amendments address some concerns that are raised by amendments in later groups and will feel able to agree them. This will colour the debates that follow. I will address other amendments once they have been moved.