19:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 29 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Sunday trading hours - power to amend or repeal—
‘Notwithstanding any existing statutory provisions, a local authority may, for its area, impose its own regulations on Sunday opening hours for retail outlets that currently have a restriction in place to either—
(a) reduce the existing hours, or
(b) extend the existing hours.’.
New clause 10—Recall elections—
‘(1) If 25% or more of the registered voters in the constituency of an elected local government member sign a relevant recall petition then a recall election must be held on the same date as the next election (whether or not a local election) to be held in the constituency of the elected government member, provided that that election is not less than 12 weeks after the threshold has been reached.
(2) In order for a recall petition to be relevant the appropriate returning officer must be satisfied that—
(a) the petition has been submitted in accordance with the rules provided for in subsection (3) and;
(b) there is evidence contained in the petition that the elected local government member has—
(i) acted in a way which is financially dishonest or disreputable,
(ii) intentionally misled the body to which he or she was elected,
(iii) broken any promises made by him or her in an election address,
(iv) behaved in a way that is likely to bring his or her office into disrepute, or
(v) lost the confidence of his or her electorate.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay regulations before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act setting out—
(a) how notice of intent to petition for recall is to be given,
(b) how “registered voters” are to be defined for different types of constituency,
(c) the definition of “appropriate returning officer”,
(d) the ways in which registered voters can sign a recall petition,
(e) the ways in which signatures to such petitions will be verified,
(f) entitlement to vote in, and the conduct of, the recall election,
(g) rules on any other related matters as considered necessary by the Secretary of State, and
(h) consequential, saving, transitory or transitional provision (including amendments to existing statutory provision, whenever passed or made).
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to returning officers on how to make assessments under subsection (2)(b) within six months of the passing of this Act.
(5) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers in a recall election is “Should [name of elected local government member] be recalled from [name of body or office]?”.
(6) If at a recall election more votes are cast in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, then—
(a) if the elected representative has been elected under a first past the post or alternative vote electoral system, he or she is recalled and a by-election must be held within three months in which the recalled candidate may stand, or
(b) if the elected representative has been elected under a system of proportional representation, the next candidate on the relevant party list shall take the seat.
(7) In this section “elected local government member” means any person elected to the Greater London Authority, a county council in England, district council, or London borough council, including an elected mayor of the council; and the Mayor of London.
(8) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(9) Subsections (1) and (2) come into force six months after the day on which the regulations under subsection (3) are made.’.
New clause 27—Low pay policy statements—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument require relevant authorities to prepare a pay policy statement for lower paid staff within six months of this Act coming into force.
(2) In this section “lower paid staff” means—
(a) the lowest paid member of staff, and
(b) any member of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff.’.
New clause 28—Local authority contractor pay policy statements—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument require relevant authorities to prepare a pay policy statement for the highest paid staff and the lower paid staff of local authority contractors within six months of this Act coming into force.
(2) In this section—
(a) “local authority contractors” means a company or organisation (a “contractor”) that supplies services or executes works for the relevant authorities to the value of more than £250,000 in any financial year;
(b) “lower paid staff” means—
(i) the lowest paid member of staff, and
(ii) any member of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff,
(c) “highest paid staff” means the highest paid member of staff by remuneration, which shall include payments made by the contractor to the member of staff in connection with that staff’s employment, any relevant bonuses and benefits in kind.’.
Amendment 37, page 4, line 22, clause 5, at end insert—
‘(6A) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may not be exercised to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply—
(a) this Part of this Act,
(b) Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 section 7 or section 13,
(c) Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 section 23,
(d) Children Act 1989 Part 3 and Schedule 2,
(e) Childcare Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2,
(f) Child Poverty Act 2010 Part 2,
(g) Equality Act 2010, section 88,
(h) Equality Act 2010, section 149,
(i) Care Standards Act 2000,
(j) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 section 21,
(k) Transport Act 2000 section 145A,
(l) Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,
(m) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007,
(n) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007,
(o) Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000,
(p) Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995,
(q) Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
(r) Mental Health Act 1983 Part 8,
(s) Community Care, Services for Carers and Children Services (Direct Payments) England Regulations 2009,
(t) Public Health Act 1875,
(u) Public Health Act 1936,
(v) Commons Act 2006,
(w) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
(x) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40,
(y) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 25 or section 28E,
(z) Environment Act 1995 Part 4,
(z1) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
(z2) Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949,
(z3) Hedgerow Regulations 1997,
(z4) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 66 or section 72,
(z5) Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 sections 12 and 13,
(z6) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
(z7) Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 30,
(z8) Zoo Licensing Act 1981,
(z9) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Part 6,
(z10) Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3,
(z11) Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 28,
(z12) Education Act 1996 section 15ZA,
(z13) Food Safety Act 1990 Parts 1, 2 and 3,
(z14) Freedom of Information Act 2000,
(z15) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 section 1,
(z16) Housing Act 1996 Part 7,
(z17) Homelessness Act 2002,
(z18) Housing Act 2004 Part 2,
(z19) Local Government Act 1972 Part VA, section 99 or section 148,
(z20) Local Government Act 2000 Part 3 section 21 or section 37,
(z21) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 Part 1, or
(z22) Adoption and Children Act 2002.’.
Government amendments 44 to 50.
Amendment 36, page 5, line 32, clause 7, at end insert—
‘subject to the exceptions specified in section 5 (6A)’.
Government amendments 51 to 98.
Amendment 42, page 193, line 27, schedule 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 on page 195.
Amendment 43, page 198, leave out lines 4 to 25.
Amendment 2, page 199, leave out lines 30 to 43 and insert—
‘The elected mayor is to be returned under the simple majority system.’.
Amendment 3, page 200, line 6, leave out from ‘one’ to second ‘vote’ in line 7.
Amendment 38, page 205, leave out lines 29 to 31.
Amendment 1, page 208, line 48, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘2.5’.
Amendment 39, page 209, leave out lines 3 to 25.
Amendment 40, page 209, leave out lines 26 to 47.
Amendment 41, page 211, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 213.
Amendment 15, page 213, line 40, at end insert—
‘9OZA Elected Mayors and Reduction of Councillors
(1) Where a local authority has an elected mayor, that local authority must reduce within four years of the election of the Mayor the number of local councillors to one-third of pre-mayoral levels.
(2) These provisions will apply retrospectively to local authorities which already have an elected mayor and the reduction in councillors must take place within four years of this legislation taking effect.’.
Amendment 4, page 215, leave out line 17.
Amendment 5, page 215, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Government amendments 99 to 129.
Amendment 365, page 15, line 44, clause 16, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Amendment 366, page 16, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
Government amendments 130 and 131.
Amendment 367, page 16, line 31, clause 17, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Amendment 302, page 18, line 28, clause 21, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 303, page 18, line 30, leave out ‘A senior’ and insert ‘Subject to subsection (2)(b), a,’.
Amendment 304, page 18, line 31, leave out ‘its chief officers’ and insert—
‘(a) its chief officers and its lower paid staff; and
(b) the chief officers and the lower paid staff for each employer of indirectly employed staff, subject to paragraph (c);
(c) nothing in this Chapter shall be taken as requiring the publication of a pay policy statement where:
(i) it relates to indirectly employed staff; and
(ii) the aggregate value of all funding received by the indirect employer of the staff from a relevant authority does not exceed £250,00 in any financial year.’.
Amendment 305, page 18, line 41, at end insert
‘and the lower paid staff
(h) the total level of remuneration of the highest paid chief officer (A);
(i) the total level of remuneration of the lowest paid member of staff (B);
(j) the total number of staff being paid the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
(k) the number of staff paid less than 10 per cent. above the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
(l) the number of staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount set out in paragraph (3)(i);
(m) the highest paid chief officer’s remuneration as a multiple of the lowest paid member of staff’s remuneration using the formulation A/B;
(n) the pay multiple to be maintained as set out in paragraph (3)(m).’.
Amendment 306, page 19, line 1, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 307, page 19, line 3, at end insert ‘and lower paid staff’.
Amendment 308, page 19, line 5, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 309, page 19, line 11, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 310, page 19, line 13, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 311, page 19, line 16, at end insert—
‘(6) Where any of the posts to be included in the pay policy statement are not full-time, the information given in the pay policy statement must be expressed as a full-time equivalent.’.
Amendment 312, page 19, line 29, clause 24, at end insert—
‘or its lower paid staff.’.
Amendment 313, page 19, line 30, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 373, page 19, line 39, leave out ‘senior’.
Amendment 314, page 20, line 35, clause 26, at end insert—
‘(g) any employee of the relevant authority whose remuneration exceeds that of any chief officer as defined in this section.’.
Amendment 315, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
‘(2A) In this Chapter “lower paid staff’, means each of the following—
(a) the lowest paid member of staff,
(b) staff paid less than 20 per cent. above the amount paid to the lowest paid member of staff.
(2B) In this Chapter “staff” means any staff whether directly or indirectly employed by a relevant authority and who are not chief officers.
(2C) In this Chapter “indirectly employed” means staff employed other than by a relevant authority to undertake work for a relevant authority and which is funded by that authority. Any reference to indirect employment, indirect employer or indirectly employed staff, shall be construed accordingly.
(2D) In this Chapter the provisions of section 231 (associated employers) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 shall apply to indirect employment arrangements.’.
Amendment 316, page 20, line 36, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘, or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 317, page 20, line 38, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
‘, or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
Amendment 318, page 20, line 40, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘, or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 319, page 20, line 41, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 320, page 20, line 43, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 283, page 20, line 44, leave out ‘is’ and insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff is’.
Amendment 284, page 20, line 45, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
Amendment 285, page 21, line 1, after ‘officer’s’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’s’.
Amendment 286, page 21, line 4, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 287, page 21, line 5, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 288, page 21, line 7, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 289, page 21, line 8, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 290, page 21, line 11, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 291, page 21, line 13, after ‘officer’, insert—
‘or lowest paid member of staff’.
Amendment 292, page 21, line 15, after ‘officers’, insert—
‘or lowest paid members of staff’.
Government new clause 13—Further warning notices.
Government new clause 14—Further EU financial sanction notices.
Amendment 353, page 22, line 1, leave out clause 30.
Government amendments 132 and 133.
Amendment 354, page 22, line 28, leave out clause 31.
Government amendments 134 and 135.
Amendment 355, page 23, line 41, leave out clause 32.
Government amendments 136 to 138.
Amendment 356, page 24, line 23, leave out clause 33.
Government amendments 139 and 140.
Amendment 357, page 24, line 38, leave out clause 34.
Government amendments 141 to 143, 183, 211, 216 and 217.
Government new clause 22—Pre-commencement consultation.
Government amendment 266.
Andrew Stunell
New clause 12 refines one of the central elements of the Bill—the general power of competence. I shall say more about that shortly and also address the other new clauses and amendments in this excessively long group.
The Government are committed to the radical decentralisation of power and control from Whitehall and Westminster to local government, local communities and individuals. We are pushing power back down to the lowest possible level, and this Bill is about shaking up the balance of power and revitalising democracy. It will give power to councils, communities, voluntary groups and the people, giving local authorities the power to take decisions that are right for their areas, and giving to local people the power to influence those decisions.
This Government trust local authorities to know what is best for their areas, we trust local councillors to know what they are doing and we are freeing up local government from the shackles of central Government. The Localism Bill does just what it says on the label.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks and wonder whether he is, therefore, just about to get on to the fact that he supports my new clause 8, which would give local authorities the opportunity to vary Sunday trading laws. If what he says is true and he wants to pass all such decisions down to the lowest possible level, that is surely what he is about to announce.
Andrew Stunell
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s case deployed in the debate.
I am pleased to report that there is a very broad measure of agreement, both inside and outside the House, on the Bill’s principles and, indeed, on many of its specific provisions.
Local authorities will need to ensure the delivery of more responsive services in a more transparent way, so that their citizens can see what is going on. To do so, local councils will need to innovate, to work across traditional boundaries and to ensure clear lines of accountability to their residents. That will be characterised, above all, by the way in which local democracy is renewed.
Within this very large group of proposed changes, there are a number of new clauses and amendments that hon. Members from all parts of the House have tabled, including the one to which my hon. Friend just referred. We shall debate them, I will consider carefully the points that hon. Members raise and I hope to have the opportunity to respond to them before the close of this debate.
We had a consensual time on the whole in Committee, and I hope that we can carry that forward in our discussion on this group of proposed changes.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Not wanting to become non-consensual at this early stage, I note that the Minister talks about limits on power, and we are still concerned about the Bill’s 142 extra powers for the Secretary of State. I am puzzled why new clause 12 specifies only the powers in clause 5(1), because they are exactly the same as those in clause 5(2). If there is a concern about limiting the powers of the Secretary of State, it should apply to both subsections. I wonder whether the Minister might cover that point.
Andrew Stunell
I hope to have satisfied the hon. Lady by the time I have completed my remarks. If not, I am sure that she will let me know.
All the Government amendments and new clauses, one way or another, are designed to improve the effectiveness of the Bill, given the range of issues that were raised in Committee, as the Minister of State said, and given outside events, including in particular the passage of the Welsh referendum, which means that some of the provisions that were in prospect earlier on can now be made a reality. To that extent, I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) that we are not inserting a whole lot of totally new provisions; we are simply making available to the Welsh Executive the same powers that are being made available in England. I hope he finds that somewhat reassuring.
We have, where appropriate, taken into account feedback from the consultations that have been carried out on elements of the Bill and representations that we have received from a wide range of organisations that have been interested in—and, in some cases, very excited about—the prospect of the Bill coming into force.
Barbara Keeley
This is the point where we have to become non-consensual, because Labour Members are still totally opposed to EU fines, and amendments have been tabled on that.
Andrew Stunell
I take note of that, and I will return to it in two or three minutes’ time, if I may.
The hon. Lady is of course right that there was not agreement on everything. I recognise, in particular, that there were different views on mayors, not only between Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams but among some of my hon. Friends. I will listen carefully to the points made today on the mayoral proposals in the Bill, particularly on such issues as shadow mayors and mayoral management arrangements. Overall, however, I was struck by how much we had in common and how much consensus there is about the need to change the power balance in this country in line with the direction that the Bill takes. I hope that the House will recognise that, through the range of new clauses and amendments that we have tabled, we have tried genuinely and thoroughly to address the points that have been raised.
Let me turn in more detail to new clause 12 and some of the other Government amendments. I appreciate that I have to strike a difficult balance between using up the available time for debate and giving the House a reasonable explanation of the measures before it. I will steer as good a course as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you will let me know if I go astray. New clause 12 and its related amendments impose conditions on the use of the delegated powers in clause 5(1) in relation to the general power of competence. Clause 5(1) sets out a power for the Secretary of State to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power of competence. We have termed this the barrier-buster power.
Amendment 64 is the equivalent provision for the general power of competence for fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales. The amendment imposes conditions on the use of the delegated powers in new section 5C(1) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which is inserted by clause 8. New section 5C(1) sets out a power for the appropriate national authority—Welsh Ministers for the devolved matters relating to Wales, but otherwise the Secretary of State—to remove or to change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power for fire and rescue authorities.
Concerns were expressed about the scope of the delegated power at clause 5(1)—the barrier buster—and the equivalent powers in relation to fire and rescue authorities. The Government reflected on those concerns and decided to introduce specific preconditions as to the use of the barrier-buster power and the limitations on its scope. These include a proportionality test and a requirement to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by an order. In addition to the current requirements that the Secretary of State has to satisfy—in particular, that he must think that a provision prevents or restricts the use of the general power and must consult on his proposals—subsection (1) now provides that he must also consider the conditions set out in subsection (2), in relation to the general power, and in section 5C(1) in relation to the fire provision to have been satisfied in relation to the proposals.
The new conditions that the clause introduces ensure that the use of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended, that there is a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected, that there is no removal of any necessary protection, that no person will be prevented from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that they might reasonably expect to exercise, and that any provision is not of constitutional significance. In the light of Opposition amendments 36 and 37, it is perhaps worth explaining the effect of these conditions in a little more detail. The first condition is that the effect of the provision made by the order is proportionate to its policy objective. It might be possible to achieve a policy objective in several different ways, some of which might be more onerous than others and could represent a disproportionate means of securing the desired outcome, so the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that that is not the case and that there is an appropriate relationship between the policy aim and the means chosen to deliver it.
The second condition is that the provision made by the order, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest, on the one hand, and the interests of the person adversely affected by the order, on the other. While it may be possible to make an order that will have an adverse effect on the interests of one or more persons, the Secretary of State must first be satisfied that this is outweighed by beneficial effects in the public interest. The third condition is that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection. The notion of necessary protection can extend to economic protection, to health and safety protection, and to the protection of civil liberties, the environment and national heritage.
The fourth condition is that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. To take a leading example, any right conferred or protected by the European convention on human rights is a right that a person might reasonably expect to keep. The fifth and final condition is that the provision made by the order is not constitutionally significant. That condition will allow orders to amend enactments that are themselves constitutionally significant, but only if the amendments are not constitutionally significant. The condition puts it beyond doubt that repeal of legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Communities Act 1972 is outside this power.
In addition to these preconditions, we are seeking to amend the Bill so that an order under clause 5(1) or section 5C(1) of the 2004 Act may not make provision in relation to certain specified limitation. Subsection (3) prevents orders from being used to delegate or transfer a function of legislating, ensuring that a power to make legislation given by Parliament to the Secretary of State or to another body cannot be transferred to a local authority in the interests of barrier busting. It is right that those decisions should remain with Parliament. Subsection (4) gives a definition of the function of legislating—that is, legislating by order, by rules, by regulation or by subordinate instruments. Subsection (5) prohibits an order from abolishing or varying any tax. It could be argued that removing a tax payable by a local authority would be the removal of a barrier, but it is not our intention that clause 5(1) should be used in that way, so the new clause will prevent an order to vary tax from being made.
Taken as a whole, the Government’s proposals will provide the protections that the Opposition seek in amendments 36 and 37, but without the inflexible and heavy-handed mechanism that they propose. Amendment 36 would amend the definition of a statutory provision by excluding from that definition a long list of statutes, which is set out in amendment 37. That appears to have been prompted by various strands of work that are being undertaken to gather information about local authority duties. This appears to be an attempt to make a point about front-line duties and the desirability of many things that local authorities have to do. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) set out on her website as being her intention. She has fairly given me notice that she
“will be pressing ministers in the Commons debate…to be clear about which other vital council services can be protected.”
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the general power is not designed as a means to do away with duties that Parliament has imposed on local authorities. The general power does not oblige local authorities to act in a particular way; it is not the same thing as a duty imposed by legislation. It will give local authorities real freedom to innovate and act in the interests of their communities. The Opposition seem to have developed a misunderstanding about the scope of clause 5(1). It provides the Secretary of State with powers to remove or change statutory provisions that prevent or restrict the use of the general power. That restriction or limitation is one that bites on the general power by virtue of clause 2. The provision is about removing barriers to the legal capacity of authorities to act innovatively and in the best interests of their communities. It is not aimed at removing duties, nor is it, nor could it be, a general-purpose tool to remove any legislation that places a burden on local authorities.
New clause 12 and the connected Government amendments will increase the safeguards on the use of the power in clause 5(1). In addition, the Secretary of State must consult before exercising the power and the appropriate parliamentary procedure for scrutinising any proposed order will be determined by Parliament.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that clause 5, when taken in conjunction with the review that his Department is carrying out into burdensome regulations, might lead to the fear, which many of my constituents have expressed to me, that important protections and duties that exist within local authorities might disappear?
Andrew Stunell
The review of statutory duties is a separate exercise. We have made it clear several times that the review of statutory duties will not remove duties to provide vital services, and that any changes to statutory duties that come about as a result of that review will subsequently be properly considered and consulted on. There is no connection between the two processes.
I urge the House, when the time comes, to support new clause 12 and to reject amendments 36 and 37.
I will turn to the other proposals in this group, on which I hope I can be helpful. When the Committee discussed the standards of behaviour required of councillors, we discussed whether a local authority should have to publicise that it has a code of conduct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) made a powerful speech on the difference between may and must. I think that was one of the Committee’s high spots. Although we consider it right that a local authority can choose whether to adopt a code of conduct for its members, it must be under a duty to disclose whether it has done so and whether it has revised or abolished its code. That duty will ensure that local people are made aware when their local authority adopts, changes or withdraws its code, while leaving it for authorities to decide how best to publicise and deal with these matters.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Minister is putting the completely absurd proposition to the House that the local authority will be under a duty to publicise a code of conduct that it may decide not to have. Will he please recognise that that is nonsense? Abolishing the requirement for a code of conduct in every local authority in the country is a serious, retrograde step, of which the Government should be profoundly ashamed.
Andrew Stunell
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and the answer is no, I do not accept that at all. When we exchanged words in Committee, I thought that this was an outrage, so I am glad that it has been downgraded a little. The important point is that the decision a local authority takes should be transparent, so that the local electorate are aware of it and the local authority are accountable to them. We have accepted the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East put to the Committee, and Government amendments 130 and 131 deal with that.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister expect to give any guidance under the powers in the Bill on what a code of conduct might contain, or will it simply be left to the local authority to do its best?
Andrew Stunell
The Local Government Association has given notice that it sees itself as—I do not want to put words into its mouth and say the custodian—the focal point for ensuring that a standard code of practice is available. I would have thought that the huge majority of local authorities will continue to have a published and open code of conduct. Indeed, I should have thought that it would reflect adversely on the reputation of a local authority if it chose not to do so. However, the right place for that decision to be taken is in that local authority in the light of the views of its electorate; it is not something that should be imposed from above.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, we have a stringent code of conduct for local authorities. Has the Minister had any discussions with local authorities in Northern Ireland on using that blueprint for a code of conduct under these proposals?
Andrew Stunell
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill is not applicable in Northern Ireland. Currently, every local authority in England has to have a statutory code of conduct, so we are not for want of an example. We are saying that there should be flexibility about the shape and nature of the code, and that that flexibility should be exercised by the local authority.
On EU fines and infractions, I assure the House and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South that we will ensure that any process to pass on an EU fine is fair, reasonable and proportionate, and we will consult on that. We will pass on a fine only if an authority has clearly caused or contributed to causing it, and has the power to remedy the situation and can afford to pay. That is set out in new clauses 13 and 14 and in Government amendments 132 to 143. The measure is not about Ministers reclaiming every penny; it is about giving a strong encouragement not to incur fines in the first place. Local authorities must not be able to assume that if they make a mistake and are in the wrong, the UK taxpayer will pay their bill for them.
It is perhaps worth rehearsing what the process is. EU grants are given with conditions attached. At present, the monitoring, and therefore the risk, falls to central Government and their agencies. In the new, devolved world, that will not always be the case, and with the transfer of control has to come a transfer of risk. The Government do not seek to offload risks that are beyond a local authority’s control—mention has been made of air pollution targets and so on.
That will all be set out in a policy statement, and I can say today that we are making good progress on that. I am placing in the Library a paper from the Greater London authority that has emerged from some of our earlier discussions, and I would very much welcome comments on it. We do not necessarily agree with every single part of it, but it will provide a strong basis for discussion over the next few weeks and we are committed to taking that discussion forward. We have also engaged with the Local Government Association and will continue to do so.
We debated fire and rescue authorities in Committee, and our amendments 92 and 93 are a response to the concerns that the Opposition raised and feedback that we have received from industry partners. They relate to authorities’ powers to charge for attending persistently malfunctioning or wrongly installed automatic fire alarms. It is not in dispute that there should be such a provision for non-domestic premises, but the point was made that domestic premises would also be caught by that power, and probably wrongly so. The amendments simply remove that option from fire and rescue authorities.
We also discussed pay accountability in Committee, and we undertook to return to the House on the matter of greater accountability on low pay in light of Will Hutton’s report on fair pay in the public sector. His report made some clear recommendations, particularly about the benefit of setting decisions on senior pay in the context of the pay of the rest of a body’s work force. Some of the Opposition’s amendments are in the same tone. We are sympathetic to that idea, particularly the potential for linking lower pay with senior pay, and we will consider the best way to take that forward. If necessary, we will return to it in the other place. As we do so, we will remain mindful of the level of burden placed on authorities and ensure that pay decisions remain ones for the appropriate local employer to take and are not dictated by us.
On the other hand, we do not think it would be helpful to use the Bill to address the pay of contracting bodies. Councils, the voluntary sector and businesses, especially small firms, have called on the Government to remove unnecessary burdens and break down barriers in local authority contracting, not increase them. That does not prevent a local authority from developing a local policy to ensure that bodies with which it contracts are open about their rates of pay as a matter of contract. That should remain an issue for local decision making, not central determination.
We have a very large group of amendments, and you no doubt have a large group of Members wishing to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House on the one hand for taking so long and on the other for dealing with some very important topics only in skeleton form. I am pleased to move new clause 12, and in due time I will wish to move the other Government new clauses and amendments in the group. I undertake to listen carefully to Members’ contributions as the debate proceeds.
Barbara Keeley
I am glad that Ministers are still so interested in my website—it makes it worth all the effort of keeping it up to date.
I shall speak first to amendments 36 and 37, which are related to new clause 12. They are intended to protect a list of the most important duties of local councils from the powers that the Secretary of State wants to take in clause 5(1) and (2). I should remind the Minister that he did not answer my question about new clause 12 not applying to clause 5(2). I see that Ministers are looking at the Box and seeing if they can find some inspiration over there.
As I said on Second Reading, the Secretary of State’s power under clause 5(1) and (2) is chilling, because it would allow him to
“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”
any statutory provision. The Government can keep calling that barrier-busting, but it will still end up being the same swingeing power. The difficulty for those who are opposed to it is that it would leave local councils and the people who use their services at the mercy of the ideology of the current Government and Secretary of State. I know from the debates that we had in Committee that some of the Ministers were opposed to giving Secretaries of State such a level of power in previous local government Bills, and spoke against it. Perhaps they would like to think about why they have had such a change of heart.
Since our debates on the Bill started, the Department has launched its review of the statutory duties of local councils. That means that the nature of the power in question, and how it will be used to sweep away what councils are starting to see as burdens, is now much more under the spotlight. The Government’s focus on duties as “burdens” has caused alarm and great concern to people who rely on the services of their local council. Their concern about the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers to sweep away councils’ duties is greater because of the language that the Government are using to describe the vital duties on which people depend. In the review, councils and the public were asked to specify the bureaucratic burdens that they wished to throw away. In fact, Ministers have allowed all the duties of councils to be listed, and voted on, as “burdens”, “red tape” or “bureaucratic barriers”. In using that language, they do not appear to have considered the importance of many of the statutory duties of local councils.
Strangely, we now find ourselves bartering to try to find out which particular duties might be safe and protected from the Secretary of State. The Department’s website states that the only duties that might be protected are those on libraries and child protection, but the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), ventured in a recent letter to The Guardian that allotments were also safe. It is not reasonable to have only vague reassurances on three out of all the duties of local councils. We have therefore tabled amendments 36 and 37, and I say to Ministers that they must be clearer about protecting the vital duties of local councils—duties that legislation has created, which provide important protections and services on which people rely—from the power that the Secretary of State wants to
“amend, repeal, revoke or disapply”
any statutory provision.
Members should make no mistake about it: there are real concerns about that power. Professor Luke Clements is a leading expert on community care law, and in an article about the statutory provisions that could be swept away by the new power, he stated:
“The list includes large swathes of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Children Act 1989 as well as virtually every community care and carers statute. The suggestion that protecting children or frail elderly people from abuse could be…‘burdensome’ is further evidence of the coalition government’s disdain for the very notion of a welfare state.”
He said of the Government’s approach:
“It is a contempt that has already created a largely lawless regime where fundamental rights, such as the right to a face-to-face assessment”
and
“the right to have assessed needs met regardless of resources…are openly flouted. It is a regime that fuels the daily news stories of disabled, elderly and ill people being failed by public bodies, and experiencing neglect and extreme indignity. In the face of this, the response of the coalition government is not to strengthen the law, but to suggest that it be trashed.”
Andrew Stunell
I have really been disappointed by the hon. Lady’s remarks, which are a travesty of what is in prospect. I spent perhaps a little too long in my speech explaining precisely what new clause 12 will do and making it absolutely clear what it will not do. I am sorry to say that she is making it up, which is not good.
Incidentally, I can answer the hon. Lady’s question about clause 5(2)—as she suggested, inspiration has arrived. It relates only to overlapping powers, so by definition it will not change local authority powers or duties because it will take away only one of the overlapping powers.
Barbara Keeley
I am afraid that I am not convinced by that, and I am not making this up. I know Professor Clements, because he helped to draft much of the carers legislation that went through the House as private Members’ Bills. He, among others, is very concerned.
To respond to the Minister’s point, part of the difficulty is that the conditions set out in Government new clause 12(2) are subjective. It is another lawyers’ charter, because they will have to settle the question of whether or not legislation fits those conditions. The key point is that all the decisions lie completely within the judgment of the Secretary of State. That is what is making people uncomfortable. There is great concern about sweeping away the laws, rights and protections for those who need care. Yesterday in the Palace, I attended a gathering of five all-party groups on disability—I attended as the chair of the all-party group on social care. Two questions were asked of the Bill and the review, and there was a chorus of concern in the room. Ministers can attack me if they want to, but I am representing concern from outside the House.
Citizens Advice has told MPs that it is worried about the broad-ranging powers that clause 5 confers on the Secretary of State. It is worried that the power will be used to revoke or repeal a number of statutory provisions, such as the public sector equalities duty.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister says that he wants power to be given back to local people. Does my hon. Friend agree that giving the Secretary of State 126 new powers contradicts that?
Barbara Keeley
That is a contradiction. In fact, the 126 or 142 new powers—we can count them in different ways—are of great concern.
The list of legislation that we propose in amendment 37 for protection from those new powers may not be perfect—I am sure people can find fault with it—but it is vital to get a clear steer from Ministers that they do not intend to continue to see important council duties as burdens. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Homelessness Act 2002, which is on our proposed list, creates a vital duty for councils to have a strategy for tackling homelessness, or does he agree with Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has asked for that duty to be scrapped? Hammersmith and Fulham also wants to scrap the rough sleeper strategy, and wants not to assess the sufficiency of locally available child care. It wants no requirements on its youth service. Do Ministers believe that Hammersmith and Fulham should be able to shed those duties? That is the key question.
Councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham want to shake off what they view as burdensome duties, but the Opposition’s view is that those council services are vital and should be protected. A list of what is vital and to be protected is the key to that. In Committee, the Minister said:
“Every local authority will retain duties enshrined in other legislation to provide services and not to charge for them, if charging is not allowed at present.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2011; c. 184.]
However, Hammersmith and Fulham wants not to have plans for homeless people, and Wandsworth council plans to charge children £2.50 to use a playground. That is where we are. It is time for Ministers to end the uncertainty that they have generated with their sloppy plans for revising legislation on council duties. It is time for them to reintroduce certainty, so that people know that councils must provide land for allotments and an efficient library service, assess carers’ needs, and have plans for tackling homelessness.
I welcome the Minister’s partial sympathy on proposed new clauses 27 and 28 and the proposed amendments on pay transparency and very much look forward to developments. Much has been said in recent months on top pay in local government. I am sure that Ministers would agree that a great deal of that talk has been stoked by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. However, he has tended not to show the same concern for the lowest paid staff, or for levels of pay among consultants and contractors, who provide £38 billion-worth of goods and services to local government, which is paid for out of the public purse.
Our proposals aim to introduce pay transparency much more fully than the Government plan. We want to shine a light on top pay and low pay, and I welcome the Minister’s sympathy for that. However, the Opposition also want to develop the recommendations in the Hutton review on pay. Ministers said that they would reflect on that review, and I hope they take that seriously. All hon. Members agree that there has been some excessive growth in senior roles in the public sector, but there are also myths about public sector pay. The Local Government Association estimates that of 1.7 million employees in mainstream local government jobs, 60% earn less than £18,000 a year. According to the LGA, more than 400,000 council workers earn less than the living wage, including more than 250,000 who earn less than £6.50 an hour.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. As a former Unison trade union officer, I know that a high proportion of those low-paid workers—a big majority—are women.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, a quarter of those who experience in-work poverty are employed by the public sector. In addition, the average public sector pension, at £4,200, is very far from the gold-plated pension that people talk about. Our proposals would introduce greater transparency and help the objective of curbing excessive pay at the top of the scale, because it will be harder for a highly paid council chief executive to defend his or her pay if the public can see what that council pays its lowest-paid members of staff.
The Opposition believe that as well as an approach on top and low pay, we need a fair and consistent approach to transparency in local authority pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said in Committee, Will Hutton’s report puts paid to the myths. Public sector employees earn only £1 of every £100 earned by the top 1%, or to put it another way, out of every £100 that is earned by the top 1%, only £1 is earned in the public sector. Therefore, the perception that the public sector is awash with fat cats is a myth, and it does not help when DCLG Ministers spend their time building that myth as a way of dealing with top pay.
The Hutton report confirms that increases in executive pay have been a private sector phenomenon. That is why tackling excess pay should happen not just in the public sector. We should also focus on pay in the private sector when money is paid from the public purse—that is the test. Staff on outsourced local government contracts tend to be concentrated in low-wage sectors such as cleaning, catering, low-skilled manual work and care work. One key question for hon. Members is this: do we want cleaners, care workers and teaching assistants to earn a living wage? The Opposition believe that they should earn such a wage. We therefore hope that Ministers and Government Members agree that the implementation of a senior pay policy in local government would be a double standard if the same logic is not applied to contractors, not least because the local government procurement market is valued at £38 billion.
Will Hutton said in his report that
“it is important that the Fair Pay Code and as far as possible the other recommendations of this Review are extended into the public services industry.”
I hope that Ministers—I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber—support Hutton’s proposals to extend pay transparency to those private sector contractors who are paid out of the public purse. Implementation of our proposals would help to ensure that executive pay does not spiral up, that low pay is challenged, and that people can be confident that their local council is spending their money fairly and wisely.
Finally, I support amendments 39 to 41, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Birmingham, Erdington. The proposals would remove the power of the Secretary of State, who has just joined us in the Chamber, to direct or order the imposition of shadow mayors. That is one of the most controversial measures in the Bill, and it represents the Government at their most centralising. The Government want to order a local authority to cease its existing form of governance and begin to operate a mayor and cabinet executive. Ministers spent months denying that they intended to try to impose shadow mayors.
I remind the Secretary of State that he gave the following answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 21 October 2010:
“She seems to be suggesting that we would somehow impose mayors on those 12 cities, but of course we will not-that is completely out of the question. The proposals will be subject to referendums. Once we know the views of the people in those 12 cities, we will move on to the election of a mayor if people vote for that.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1117.]
[Interruption.] I am getting some confusing signals from Government Members. On the same day, to be clear about the Secretary of State’s intentions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asked him again whether it was his intention to turn council leaders into mayors before holding a referendum. He stood at the Dispatch Box and referred my hon. Friend back to the earlier question:
“I ruled out the possibility that we would be imposing mayors. This will be subject to a referendum.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 1125.]
He was absolutely clear. However, the proposal in the Bill directly contradicts what the Secretary of State said on that occasion and on other occasions. It is further proof of a Government who say one thing and do another, and it raises further questions about whether what they say can be trusted at all.
Since the debate began on the proposal to impose mayors on 12 of our largest cities, opposition has bubbled up and developed all over the place. Indeed, the day after the Localism Bill was announced, the leader of Bradford council, Councillor Ian Greenwood, told the Bradford Telegraph and Argus newspaper that he was uncomfortable with being given an office to which he had not been elected. In that article, he said:
“My view is this is not the right thing for Bradford… I am uncomfortable about being given an office I wasn’t elected to. I don’t feel it’s the right thing to do. Leadership is not about dictating, it’s about taking people with you”.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that we need a clear line on this? The Secretary of State’s apparent proposal for Birmingham would mean that the person who lost the election this May and will lose it again next May will be imposed on the people of Birmingham, irrespective of how they vote. Surely there is nothing democratic about that.
Barbara Keeley
No, there is absolutely not. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
Hon. Members will be interested to know the extent to which there is all-party opposition to these proposals in Bradford. The Conservative group leader on Bradford council also argued against the imposition of a shadow mayor in that city. In the same article, Councillor Anne Hawkesworth said:
“My colleagues and I are not supportive of elected mayors… We do not think that the proposals are suited to the needs of…Bradford.”
Last week, the same issue was reported on again, when the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said:
“My view is that it should be for the councils to decide if they want to go down the referendum route. The referendum shouldn’t be imposed.”
The Opposition agree. Shadow mayors and referendums on having a mayor should not be imposed. In Bradford at least, it seems, there is Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Government’s proposals. However, there has also been opposition in other councils, including Leeds city council.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
While my hon. Friend is running through a list of authorities, will she also refer to Sheffield—now a Labour-controlled authority, of course? There has been cross-party agreement between Labour and Liberal Democrats, and all are opposed to any mayoral system at all, and certainly opposed to shadow mayors. I am sure that were there any Conservative councillors in Sheffield—which there are not—they would be joining in the opposition as well. Is it not a strange system in which a mayor’s legitimacy comes from being elected by the public, but a shadow mayor’s legitimacy comes from being the representative of most councillors on a council? In Sheffield, that majority of councillors are opposed to the proposals.
Barbara Keeley
Absolutely. I was not going to go through a complete list, but I welcome hearing about what has happened in Sheffield.
It seems that Yorkshire is turning against these proposals en masse, and there has been opposition in other councils—for example, in Leeds city council. The Yorkshire Post quoted its leader, Councillor Keith Wakefield, as saying that these proposals are
“not acceptable in today’s democracy… If people decide they want an elected mayor that’s what they should have, but do it following a vote… I think the idea of a referendum is OK where people have an opportunity to say yea or nay. What’s not right is putting you in a position where there’s been no vote.”
I understand that he would turn down the position whatever happens.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford East and his colleagues will support our amendment 41, and vote against the imposition of shadow mayors and referendums on their local councils.
Barbara Keeley
I am about to conclude, so as to leave time for other Members to speak.
I regret that a new group of amendments on scrutiny was not selected for debate tonight. It was debated in Committee, and I hope that it can be taken forward to the other place. I would like to underline again and again that we are still opposed to EU fines.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Report on this important Bill. I appreciate that there are a lot of amendments, however, and that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will be as succinct as possible. I would like to refer to amendments 2 and 3. They are small but significant amendments that deal with the election of elected mayors. Because of their significance, I hope to press them to a vote tonight, unless Ministers see their merits.
I fully subscribe to the localism agenda. I believe that we have become an over-centralised state, with too much power at the centre, whether with Ministers or civil servants. The Bill will start to turn the tanker around. I accept that progress will be slow, but it will take the agenda in the right direction. On Second Reading, I said that a cultural change was required first in Whitehall, with less interference and prescription from the centre, and, secondly, in the town hall, with people there taking more responsibility. However, localism has three strands: the division of power; tax-raising powers; and governance. I would like to concentrate on governance, particularly elected mayors.
I am a strong supporter of the concept of elected mayors. That is the direction in which we should be going. They are open, transparent and accountable, and I also believe that they will help to revive local government. I thought that there was broad cross-party support for them, because they were introduced by a Labour Government in 2000, and because, obviously, the coalition Government are retaining the concept and looking to introduce 11 new mayors in due course.
Kelvin Hopkins
I accept that elected mayors were a Labour concept, although I was not in favour of them. It is noticeable that across the country many local authorities have rejected the idea, and that many of those who voted for them now regret doing so.
John Stevenson
I accept that they are not universally supported by all parties, but I believe that there is broad support. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point, though, because there are several reasons why elected mayors have not caught on. However, I want to concentrate on my amendment 2 about their actual election.
At present, mayors are elected under the supplementary vote system, which is retained in the Bill. Effectively it is a form of the alternative vote. My amendment 2 would change that so that future elections are done under first past the post. That would provide a consistent approach to elections. Varying the voting system creates confusion and a lack of certainty for the average voter. Two weeks ago, this country went to the polling booth for a referendum on whether we wanted AV or first past the post. Had the voters supported AV, I would have withdrawn this amendment. I would have accepted the will of the people. In fact, there was an overwhelming and emphatic vote for first past the post. As one hon. Member said to me, “The people of this country did not say no; they said never.” I accept that judgment, but I believe there has to be consistency. I support the amendment on the basis that we should have a consistent approach to our elections and that elected mayors should therefore be elected under first past the post. I genuinely hope that the House will agree with what the people said two weeks ago and support the amendment.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I want to address new clauses 13 and 14 on EU fines. I believe that ministerial advice stated that individual fines to local authorities would be appropriate where there was a direct causal link, and where councils were guilty of action or inaction. One example is waste, on which I would like to address two key issues: EU directives on recycling and landfill taxes.
The Local Government Association briefing is dismissive of the Government’s proposals. It states:
“Moves to allow Ministers to force English councils to pay parts of fines imposed on the UK government by the EU are unfair, unworkable, dangerous and unconstitutional. This is an unprecedented power for Ministers to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny and will inevitably lead to legal battles as Government tries to apportion “blame” for EU fines.”
The LGA urges that the policy be scrapped, and continues:
“In effect it means a Minister may simultaneously be prosecutor, judge, jury, and co-defendant, when Ministers themselves may actually be responsible for fines being levied. This is neither impartial nor localist.”
There are reasons why the Government are responsible for such fines perhaps being levied, but I want to address the confusion that seems to exist in Government. The Minister for the natural environment—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—said in Committee in March that local authorities would not face what I describe as “bin taxes”, which are charges on local authorities and their residents for not reaching the EU’s 50% threshold. I asked him:
“I want to press the Minister on EU fines for England and Wales on waste collection. Does he support the individual fining of authorities that do kerbside collection and that are struggling to reach 50%, as suggested by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government?”
The Minister replied:
“I can tell the Committee that local authorities will not be fined individually for not achieving 50%. I can give that assurance…If we are failing, it will be lamentable”.—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 March 2011; c. 9-10.]
There seems to be a great deal of confusion between the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this issue. To be honest, I would like the proposal scrapped, but we at least need some clarity on how to reach 50% recycling rates and avoid EU fines.
The Bill does nothing to protect my constituents, particularly given that councils in east Lancashire have been hit extremely hard by DCLG cuts. Residents in my local authority, which was Conservative until last Thursday night—thankfully we now have a Labour authority—had achieved a 40% recycling rate, or just under. In effect, we are talking about a bin tax by any other name, and it is unfair. The message to the Minister this evening is that it is not the fault of the residents of Lancashire. The county council’s waste private finance initiative schemes would have resulted in a 90% recycling rate, but they were scrapped a few months ago. Up until a few months ago we had a strategy that would have enabled us to avoid EU fines, and we are talking about some of the most deprived communities in this country.
There are also issues around recycling centres. If the Government will not invest in recycling centres, or if the spread of recycling centres across the country is disproportionate, that is not fair either, but that is a Government policy. It is not an EU policy; it is a policy that the Government will be answerable for. The LGA is quite correct to say that the Government will be held to account; indeed, this issue could end up in the courts.
However, there is a second, more important reason why the scheme is not fair—a reason that I put to the Under-Secretary—and it concerns the difference between kerbside and co-mingled collections. Kerbside collection rates are around 30% to 40%, whereas co-mingled collections through recycling centres are hitting 80%, 90% and beyond. Local authorities in areas with co-mingled recycling will have high collection rates, but they will also have problems with contamination, which I accept. The Government are trying to encourage people not to co-mingle, but to separate. However, collection rates in areas with kerbside collections are much lower, so EU fines are unfair.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in his tracks, but I think that I can reassure him. He is operating on completely the wrong premise. There is no suggestion at all that a fine would be levied on an authority because of its performance on recycling rates. The only suggestion is that if the authority does not adopt a plan as required—that is, something specifically required of that authority—and if it has been warned that it needs to have one, that will be the occasion for a fine. That authority’s performance is completely irrelevant, whatever it might be. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and allow him to return to the issue at hand.
Graham Jones
I thank the Minister for that, because he is essentially saying that he has just ripped up his own new clause, which now has no teeth—he has just taken them all out. If local authorities are to come up with a plan, they will come up with one and carry on recycling at 30%. However, the Minister is not going to say to local authorities, “Well, actually, because you’ve got a plan, we’re going to do something about it.” Instead, he will be saying, “You’ve got a plan, so we’re going to do nothing about it.” He has taken all the teeth out of his own new clause, so why has he proposed it? Why has it taken him until today to say what he has said this evening, and why do ministerial statements say that the proposal involves waste? He is effectively telling people that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It is up to the Member speaking whether they wish to give way. The hon. Gentleman has given way once, and if he wishes to do so again, I am sure that he will let the Minister know.
Graham Jones
I accept what the Minister has said on the record, which he made absolutely clear. The new clause has no value, but I would say—
Graham Jones
No.
The Minister of State had the opportunity before to say what he has said this evening, but there are real issues—[Interruption.] That is fine, but it is the Government who are putting forward their new clause, which now has no teeth.
In conclusion—because I was wrapping up—the LGA says that the proposal will be problematic to enforce. What are the Government enforcing? How can local government increase recycling rates for residents? If action is to be taken, it will hit some of the poorest communities that have higher recycling rates, not some of the wealthiest ones, and the same goes for landfill taxes. I appreciate Ministers’ comments, but as far as I am concerned, I am delighted that all the teeth have been taken out of this proposal.
Philip Davies
I certainly hope that the Minister will give me as helpful a response as he gave the previous speaker when he considers my amendments.
My new clause 8 would allow local authorities to vary Sunday trading hours in their areas. As hon. Members will know, under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, large shops over 280 square metres may open for only six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm on Sundays, excluding Easter Sunday, when they must remain closed. I think that this is rather anachronistic. Sunday trading is increasingly popular. I have no interest to declare, but I do have some experience to declare, as somebody who worked for Asda for 13 years. In my time there, Sunday trading hours were the busiest hours of the trading week. Contrary to common belief, Sunday trading hours were also the most popular hours that members of staff wished to work, because for many people Sunday was one of the few days on which they could do additional hours, as they had other people at home looking after their children and so on. If people want to shop on a Sunday or work for certain hours, I do not really see what business the Government have telling them what hours they can do.
Members may be aware that Scotland has a different regime. Sunday trading is fully deregulated in Scotland, although, under the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, workers have the right to refuse to work on Sundays. I am not aware that the whole world has collapsed in Scotland as a result of deregulating Sunday trading hours. In fact, my experience is that it has proved to be incredibly popular with both customers and workers alike. I would like workers and shoppers in England and Wales to have exactly the same rights to shop or work in shops at a time of their choosing as people in Scotland have.
My new clause 8 would not give local authorities the opportunity simply to extend Sunday trading hours, because I believe in true localism. My new clause also offers local authorities the opportunity to restrict Sunday trading hours further, if they so wish. If we believe that decisions should be taken locally, we should give local authorities the widest possible ability to make decisions to suit their areas. In areas that need extra regeneration, the opportunity to open for extra hours on a Sunday might be welcome, as it may benefit the local authorities in such areas. I do not see why the Government should stand in those authorities’ way if they believe that to be an important part of their regeneration strategy. Other local authorities may wish to restrict Sunday trading hours. I would not advise them to do so—I do not think it would be very popular—but that would be up to them, as democratically elected local authorities. So I hope that the Minister will explain whether he agrees with my proposed extension of the principle of localism. If he does not agree, will he tell me what on earth his objection is to extending a right to the people of England that the people of Scotland already have?
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Philip Davies
I want to press on, because the Government have allocated a shameful amount of time for this debate and other people want to speak.
I support first past the post, even though my father would have been disadvantaged by it. My amendment 15 proposes that there should be a two-thirds reduction in the number of councillors in local authority areas that have an elected mayor. There are already far too many local councillors; Bradford has 90, for example. The US Senate has only 100 people in it, for goodness’ sake. Why do we need 90 councillors in Bradford? If we are to have an elected mayor as well, why on earth should we have an additional layer of bureaucracy, more expense and more levels of local politicians? If we are going to have an elected mayor, for goodness’ sake let us reduce the number of local councillors at the same time and save the council tax payer some money. I hope that the Government will accept my rather modest amendments, but if they do not, I will certainly be interested to hear their reasons.
Kelvin Hopkins
I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about first past the post. I am not a supporter of elected mayors but, if we have to have them, they should be elected by the first-past-the-post system. He is absolutely right.
I rise briefly to speak to my amendments 353 to 357, which would delete clauses 30 to 34. The clauses relate to fines to be imposed by the European Union. I find the whole idea of such fines complete anathema—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thought that I might get some support in the Chamber on that point. We could quite easily leave out all reference to the EU, and I would like to see that happen.
I note that the Minister, in introducing the new clause, said that he had already had discussions with the Local Government Association. The LGA is very concerned about this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) rightly said. I hope that the Government will think again and simply delete any reference to the EU. Rather than giving freedoms to local authorities, their proposals will put an imposition on them. They would place more central control on them, rather than leaving them to their own devices and giving them more freedoms.
I hope the Minister will think about this and that the Government see fit, during the later stages of the Bill, to delete any reference to the EU. I strongly support the LGA’s view, which was ably set out by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister will give this matter some thought. I shall not press my amendments to a Division, but I hope that he will bear in mind my feelings and those of many other Members.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am grateful for this opportunity to place my views, with which those hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee will already be familiar, on the record, and I apologise for any repetition. I fully support amendment 41; indeed, there are many amendments that I could support, and many more that I would like to have seen that no one else would have supported. I feel strongly about this one, however. It relates to elected mayors and shadow mayors, and to the executive powers of the mayors. Amendment 41 deals with something that symbolises everything that is wrong with the Bill.
There is nothing worse than waste, and there is nothing worse than a wasted opportunity. The Bill is a colossal wasted opportunity for the House to consider the relationship between central and local government. We have profoundly let down the democratic system by not reviewing that relationship. We could have looked at what other countries do, and agreed some basic principles against which any measures relating to local authorities could have been evaluated. I agree with Professor Stewart and Professor Jones, who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, that this is a centralism Bill, rather than a localism Bill. How different it could have been if the will had been there to make it so.
Opposition Members will no doubt be delighted to learn that, in my local authority, the Lib Dems lost a seat to Labour. We lost it in an election in which nearly seven out of 10 electors did not turn out to vote. At a time when politics is divided, and when big issues are dividing the nation, we again need to ask profound questions about why people are so reluctant to turn out and vote. We need to ask questions about the quality of the candidates, as well as about the turnout. We also need to ask what the measures in the Bill will do to address the serious democratic deficit in this country. We know the reasons behind the problem. We know that, when we knock on the doors, people say that we are all the same. The reality is that that is largely true. It is hard to be different in local government. The discretion and freedom to be different have disappeared, year by year, Government by Government.
In Committee, I mentioned local authority budgets. Bradford has a budget of more than £1 billion, yet we end up discussing only £1 million or £2 million. Local politicians expend a lot of hot air disputing those amounts, while the vast majority of the budget is beyond their control. Yes, we are largely all the same. The Bill could have removed barriers and restrictions. I do not understand why, when we are desperate to remove barriers to the private sector to encourage initiative, entrepreneurship, enterprise and freedoms, we do not do the same thing at local government level. Those barriers will remain after the Bill has been passed.
The Government are still overbearing, arrogant and interfering. They are still ruling by stipulation, by compulsion and by bribery. They provide handouts that local government can spend, but on one thing only. How many times have Members who were formerly councillors known that the only show in town involved doing whatever the Government were funding? They were not given the discretion to spend that money as they wished. The funding would go only to the private finance initiatives or to academies, for example. We, as locally elected councillors, were not given the money and asked how we would like to spend it. Remember the bribery involved in the swimming campaign and the free school meals? The initiatives lasted for one year only, and we had to pick up the tab the year after. They were introduced simply to facilitate ministerial press releases.
None of this will be changed by the Bill. Councillors are used and abused. The Treasury insists on controlling the finance, and without financial freedom, there is no democratic freedom. The low opinion of local government held by people in this place staggers me; I am appalled by it. An example is the outrageous front-loading of the cuts. Instead of local government being seen as a partner to help us through the financial crisis by contributing to the deficit reduction over a period of time and being asked for help to deal with it, the cuts have been imposed on it from above by a Government who claim to support localism.
I support amendment 41. My views on elected mayors are, quite frankly, my business and they should be expressed in a ballot if my council decides that that is what it wants to do. I will participate in that debate—not in this place, but where it should take place: in council chambers up and down the country. Yes, we should set parameters and controls; yes, we should demand disclosure, which was mentioned earlier; but for goodness’ sake, let us breathe life back into a vital part of our democratic system.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the next localism Bill. Does he agree that it is important, even for those who might not support the amendments on the shadow mayors and related issues, to ask Ministers to look at these proposals again?
Heidi Alexander
I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall limit my comments to a few. I applaud the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) for his speech. I did not anticipate hearing comments like that from the Government side of the Chamber, but he is a man who says it as it is, and I respect his views and the way he put them.
I shall focus on two aspects of this group of new clauses and amendments: senior pay policy, dealt with in new clauses 27 and 28, and powers to make supplemental provision, as set out in amendment 37 to clause 5. Bringing transparency to senior council pay is entirely right. I accept that some people might have been paid excessively in some circumstances, but this constant bashing of chief executives and senior council officers by Ministers does a complete disservice to people who do an incredibly difficult job in councils up and down the country. Some of these people will have worked their whole lives in local authorities; others might have left good private sector jobs to work there.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Lady is adopting a strange position in defending the massive increase in pay at the top of the public sector. Does she accept that her Government could have done something about transparency? When she talks about a disservice, is not the real disservice to the electors of our communities who have to pay the bills for these people who have earned incredible amounts of money over the last few years?
Heidi Alexander
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that I accepted pay transparency is a good thing at both the top and the bottom of an organisation. I accept that the previous Government could have brought forward measures to insist on pay transparency and I know that some local authorities were transparent. Many have independent remuneration panels that would take decisions about councillor pay. I know that my own local authority is certainly looking at having an independent panel to review executive pay. My point is that we should shine a light on abuses, but that this constant barrage is disproportionate.
These measures are, in my view, all about the Secretary of State getting a headline. Listening to him, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that if only 600-odd council chief executives were paid less, the national budget deficit would be dealt with. It will not. This is a complete red herring. Let us take the example of my local authority of Lewisham. The council’s overall pay bill is £280 million, which pays for thousands of staff. The top 32 jobs of senior management account for £4.1 million; the five executive directors and the chief executive cost the council in the region of £1 million. Yes, £1 million is a huge amount of money, but we have to take account of these individuals’ responsibilities and the repercussions they might face if they gave bad advice, took bad decisions or implemented bad management. When politicians make a bad decision, they might lose an election, but council officers doing the same could end up in prison.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The responsibility of chief officers has not changed. The last Government actively encouraged councils to be rewarded in inspections for being seen to pay high salaries, because that appeared to make the same officers better officers.
Heidi Alexander
I have no experience of that happening. I would be interested to speak to the hon. Gentleman after the debate to learn more about his experience.
What puzzles me most about this Government’s obsession with senior pay is that it comes at a time when they seem spectacularly unwilling to tackle excessive pay in the private sector. I represent a London constituency and I know that there are bankers, lawyers and accountants who, within five or six years of graduating from university, will be earning £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year. That is not far off the wage of a head of children’s services. I ask whether it can be right to put all the focus on senior council pay.
I agree with the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers that deal with bringing transparency to low pay. Lewisham is an authority that has led the way on implementing the London living wage. As a result of its London living wage policy, 800 contracted staff are better off from the council’s insistence on seeking invitations from contractors that put in a London living wage bid as well as a regular bid. I am proud of the work that the authority has done on that and I believe that there are ways of encouraging the public sector and local councils to do the same.
I had wanted to comment on amendment 37, but I am conscious of the time. It is strange how the Government are, drip by drip, telling us which duties they wish to protect—whether it be duties to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, or to provide allotments or whatever. Why did the Government not do this work before they put out their review of burdensome regulations? A couple of weeks ago, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government heard the Minister for Housing and Local Government talk about the Department’s decisive leadership in abolishing the Audit Commission. I would urge the Government to show some leadership in saying which of the “burdens” they value and want to see protected. It seems to be one rule for one thing and a completely different rule for something else. I think it is sloppy and poor government—sadly, I think many of the Bill’s provisions are an example of poor government. I look forward to voting against some clauses and in favour of some amendments when we get the chance.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
We have so little time that I am going to cut straight to the chase; I hope not to take more than a minute or two.
I speak in favour of new clause 10, which I tabled and which is supported by Members from both sides of the House. It concerns the recall of councillors. I view this as a simple, obvious, “no brainer” idea, which I hope will be met with a nod of approval by both Front-Bench teams. I will briefly make the case for it.
As Members know, the Government are planning to introduce a recall mechanism for parliamentarians, whereby Members face being removed from office if their constituents so choose. The plans, in my view, do not go nearly far enough. MPs will be subject to recall only if a Committee decides that they have committed an act of serious wrongdoing. Recall is supposed to be about empowering people, not parliamentary Committees, so I shall seek to amend that provision when I have a chance. In the meantime, I was pleased that the Secretary of State promised to consider introducing into this Bill a recall mechanism for councillors. That has not happened, so I have done it for him.
I am fortunate in that my constituency is served by some excellent councillors, but we all know that there are some councillors who do very little for their constituents, so there should surely be a mechanism whereby residents can hold councillors to account during the four years in between elections in the same way as employees are in every other field of human endeavour. It cannot be right to ask Members to vote for measures that will introduce recall for parliamentarians, but not for councillors in local government, which is just as important.
My new clause would allow for
“25% or more of the… voters in the constituency of an elected local government member”
to petition for and trigger a recall election. I think that that strikes the right balance between preventing vexatious recall attempts and empowering local people to hold their elected councillors to account. The new clause would greatly empower local people and would keep councillors on their toes, and I hope that it can be put to the vote so that the House can support it.
Mr Raynsford
I wish to speak, very briefly, to amendments 365 and 366, which I tabled and which relate to standards.
In his opening remarks on the programme motion, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—who steered the Bill through its Committee stage—expressed a wish to listen to the views of people, whether they were members of the Committee, other interested parties, or people who had given evidence to the Committee. As he knows, an awful lot of people gave evidence, and many who gave evidence on standards gave very interesting evidence. Sadly, however, the Government did not listen to the evidence, including that given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government may be right in saying that there is a case for some streamlining of the standards procedure, and indeed I conceded that in Committee, but I am afraid that they are making a serious mistake in substituting for the existing machinery a framework that is incoherent, that is potentially extremely weak, and that will contain serious anomalies.
Let us examine those three problems. First, clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to require local authorities to establish a procedure relating to the declaration of interests, a breach of which will involve a criminal liability. Clause 16 allows the establishment of an entirely voluntary framework within which it will be up to a local authority to decide whether to adopt a code of conduct. That could lead to an extraordinary situation. Someone who had failed, perhaps owing to a technicality, to declare an interest as part of the mandatory requirement imposed by Government would be liable for a criminal action, whereas someone who had behaved in a deplorable way—who had bullied people, been dishonest, or behaved shamelessly in the council chamber—could emerge scot-free because the council concerned had chosen not to adopt a code of conduct. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
Secondly, there will be no code of conduct promoted by Government, like the model code that has existed in the past, that could serve as the default in the event of a local authority’s failure to adopt its own code.
Thirdly, there is a serious risk that, under clause 16(2), a local authority that currently has a code of conduct could
“withdraw its existing code of conduct without replacing it.”
Ministers claimed that they would leave this to local government—that they would do the right thing. At a time when we are all concerned about standards in public life, whether at national or local government level, it is extraordinary that they should produce a half-baked proposal which has not been thought through, which allows loopholes and anomalies to exist, and which—most seriously—undermines the substantial progress that has been made in recent years in improving those standards.
Although Ministers appear unwilling to accept the case for amendments in the House of Commons, I sincerely hope that Members in another place with real experience of these matters will press amendments to ensure that there is a more coherent, more satisfactory and more demanding framework to maintain standards in public life.
Andrew Percy
I served as a local councillor for 10 years under the previous standards regime, which was an abuse of and an assault on local democracy. As long as councillors do not break any criminal law, it is for the public who elected them to judge their behaviour. I was once referred to the standards board by a political activist for having dared to be a school teacher. The process wasted public money, because someone had to investigate, only to find it was all a load of old guff. It was a politically motivated referral, and there were countless examples of the same thing in my council chamber. Members on all sides reported each other for everything. That is a load of old nonsense, and the sooner it goes the better.
As for pay policy, I cannot support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). It is incredible that the Opposition should advance such proposals, having done what they have done to public sector pay at the top. I recall that when the Labour authority in Hull was seen as a failing council—I believe that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) was a Minister at the time—we were inspected by officials who told us that we must pay our senior staff more. We ended up with five corporate directors on outrageous salaries of £105,000 a year. [Interruption.] It is true: I was there at the time. We saw a massive explosion in pay. The suggestion that we should take lessons from the Opposition on the subject takes some swallowing.
I do, however, agree that there should be more transparency in regard to private contractors who work for local authorities. My local council, which was Labour-controlled until two weeks ago but is now Conservative-controlled, has spent £3 million on consultants in the last year, and spent millions of pounds in the preceding years. There should be more openness about how money is spent and how much people in the private sector are making. There is a good point behind the proposal, although, as I have said, it takes a little bit of swallowing given that the last Government presided over the pay explosion at the top.
Having made those few comments, I will yield to other Members who, I am sure, are keen to make their own contributions.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Let me first say how ably my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) spoke to amendment 2, which concerns the first-past-the-post system for electing mayors. I shall certainly support him in the Lobby if he presses it to a vote.
The Government are clearly in favour of the principle of elected mayors, given that they propose to allow 12 of them in the Bill. What I want to know is why they are making it so difficult for local authorities to initiate the process. Local authorities will rarely, if ever, vote for a referendum on the election of mayors. Because of the cosy relationship that often exists between councillors, they view elected mayors as a threat. However, elected mayors can provide leadership and transparency and revitalise local democracy, and we should do all that we can to encourage them. My amendment 1 would reduce the threshold of the electorate who can petition for an elected mayor from 5% to 2.5%. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of my proposal, and will support it.
Gavin Barwell
I want to comment briefly on three of the amendments that have been discussed so far.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) about a recall procedure for councillors, but, although I hope that the Government will reflect on the points that have been made and that such a procedure will be introduced eventually, I think it would be inappropriate for the House to introduce it before introducing a similar procedure for Members of Parliament.
I found it incredible that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—who would not take an intervention—should criticise the Government for forcing referendums on the governance structure of local authorities, given that the Government whom she supported forced virtually every council in the country to adopt executive systems of governance with no recourse to referendums.
Finally—I am conscious of the time—I strongly support the new clause about Sunday trading that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). He and I do not agree on many issues, but we agreed on two today, sentencing and Sunday trading. I also had a lot of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) about first past the post. He spoke of the need for consistency, but his amendment would introduce a big inconsistency between the Mayor of London and other elected mayors. The Government should consider that issue in the context of the results of the referendum.
Andrew Stunell
The Localism Bill does what it says on the label. In Committee we tested and tweaked it, and today we are taking another step forward. I urge my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to give—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Division off.
Question negatived.
Clause 5
Powers to make supplemental provision
Amendment proposed: 37, page 4, line 22, at end insert—
‘(6A) The power under subsection (1) or (2) may not be exercised to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply—
(a) this Part of this Act,
(b) Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 section 7 or section 13,
(c) Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 section 23,
(d) Children Act 1989 Part 3 and Schedule 2,
(e) Childcare Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2,
(f) Child Poverty Act 2010 Part 2,
(g) Equality Act 2010, section 88,
(h) Equality Act 2010, section 149,
(i) Care Standards Act 2000,
(j) Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 section 21,
(k) Transport Act 2000 section 145A,
(l) Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,
(m) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007,
(n) Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007,
(o) Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000,
(p) Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995,
(q) Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986,
(r) Mental Health Act 1983 Part 8,
(s) Community Care, Services for Carers and Children Services (Direct Payments) England Regulations 2009,
(t) Public Health Act 1875,
(u) Public Health Act 1936,
(v) Commons Act 2006,
(w) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
(x) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 40,
(y) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 25 or section 28E,
(z) Environment Act 1995 Part 4,
(z1) Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
(z2) Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949,
(z3) Hedgerow Regulations 1997,
(z4) Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 section 66 or section 72,
(z5) Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 sections 12 and 13,
(z6) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949,
(z7) Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 30,
(z8) Zoo Licensing Act 1981,
(z9) Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 Part 6,
(z10) Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3,
(z11) Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 28,
(z12) Education Act 1996 section 15ZA,
(z13) Food Safety Act 1990 Parts 1, 2 and 3,
(z14) Freedom of Information Act 2000,
(z15) Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 section 1,
(z16) Housing Act 1996 Part 7,
(z17) Homelessness Act 2002,
(z18) Housing Act 2004 Part 2,
(z19) Local Government Act 1972 Part VA, section 99 or section 148,
(z20) Local Government Act 2000 Part 3 section 21 or section 37,
(z21) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 Part 1, or
(z22) Adoption and Children Act 2002.’.—(Barbara Keeley.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Sustainable development
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, not later than six months after this Act is passed, make provision in regulations to—
(a) define sustainable development in the planning context, and
(b) incorporate the five principles of sustainability as set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy—
(i) living within environmental limits;
(ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(iii) achieving a sustainable economy;
(iv) promoting good governance; and
(v) using sound science responsibly
into planning law and guidance.
(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult such organisations and persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’.
New clause 4—Community Right of Appeal
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where a local planning authority grants an application for planning permission and—
(a) the authority has publicised the application as not being in accordance with the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or
(b) the application is one in which the authority has an interest as defined in section 316;
certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State, provided any one of the conditions in subsection (2C) are met.
(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) are—
(a) the ward councillor for the area (if that councillor has lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority), or where there is more than one councillor, all councillors by unanimity;
(b) any parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F, covering or adjoining the area of land to which the application relates, by two-thirds majority voting; or
(c) any overview and scrutiny committee, by two-thirds majority voting.
(2C) The conditions are:
(a) Section 61W(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies to the application;
(b) the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment; and
(c) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission.”.
(3) Section 79 is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “authority”, insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;
(b) in subsection (6), after “land”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B)).”.’.
New clause 5—Powers of the Secretary of State
‘(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that a statutory provision (whenever passed or made) is creating uncertainty for local authorities in the discharge of their planning functions or is a matter of public dispute between local planning authorities and other relevant bodies, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend, repeal, revoke or disapply that provision.
(2) The power under subsection (1) may by exercised in relation to—
(a) all local authorities,
(b) particular local authorities, or
(c) particular descriptions of local authority.
(3) The power under subsection (1) to amend or disapply a statutory provision includes power to amend or disapply a statutory provision for a particular period.
(4) In this section “statutory provision” means a provision of an Act.
(5) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such local authorities
(b) such representatives of local government, and
(c) such other persons (if any), as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
New clause 6—The purpose of planning
‘(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) Before section 1 insert—
“A1 Purpose of Planning
(1) The purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development.
(2) Any person exercising functions and duties under the planning Acts must do so with the objective of achieving sustainable development and shall have regard in doing so to any guidance given for that purpose by the Secretary of State.
A2 Interpretation
‘(1) In this Act—
(a) ‘sustainable development’ means development that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs including the application of the following principles:
(i) living within environmental limits;
(ii) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(iii) achieving a sustainable economy;
(iv) promoting good governance;
(v) using sound science responsibly;
(b) ‘the planning Acts’ means—
(i) the Localism Act 2011;
(ii) the Planning Act 2008;
(iii) this Act;
(iv) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
(v) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
(vi) the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990; and
(vii) the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990.”’.
New clause 7—Removal of permitted area restrictions
‘(1) A relevant local authority may consider and, if it thinks fit, grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate and may do so regardless of whether or not—
(a) the premises to which the application relates are situated in the area of the relevant local authority which issued the licence; and
(b) the area of the relevant local authority in which those premises are situated was a permitted area when the converted casino premises licence was originally issued.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not require a relevant local authority to consider any application to vary a converted casino premises licence if that local authority has passed a resolution under section 166 of the Gambling Act 2005 (resolution not to issue casino licences) and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.
(3) In Schedule 4 to the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006 (transitional provisions), for sub-paragraph (13) of paragraph 65 (application of the Gambling Act 2005 to casino premises licences granted on a conversion application) substitute—
“(13) An application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate shall be made—
(a) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of the licensing authority which issued the licence, to that licensing authority; or
(b) in the case of premises wholly or partly situated in the area of another licensing authority, to that other licensing authority,
and section 213(f) (definition of licensing authority) shall apply to such an application as if the licensing authority considering such an application under paragraph (b) was the authority which issued that licence.
(14) Nothing in paragraph (13)(b) shall require a licensing authority to consider or grant an application to vary a converted casino premises licence so that it relates to premises to which it did not previously relate if—
(a) the premises are wholly or partly situated in the area of a licensing authority which did not issue the licence; and
(b) the licensing authority has resolved under section 166 not to issue casino premises licences and that resolution is in effect at the time the application is made.”.
(4) In this section—
“converted casino premises licence” has the same meaning as in the Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2006;
“permitted area” means the area of a local authority which was a permitted area for the purposes of the Gaming Act 1968;
“relevant local authority” means a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland which is a licensing authority under the Gambling Act 2005.’.
New clause 11—Transfer of generating station consent powers to Welsh Ministers
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer to the Welsh Ministers those functions of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the Marine Management Organisation which relate to applications for an order granting development consent for the construction or extension of generating stations in Wales or in waters in or adjacent to Wales up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid within 12 months of the passing of this Act and are subject to the negative resolution procedure.’.
New clause 29—Retail diversity scheme
‘(1) In Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 after section 15 insert—
15A (1) The local planning authority must prepare and maintain a scheme to be known as their retail diversity scheme.
(2) The retail diversity scheme must form part of the Local Development Scheme within two years of the Local Development Scheme being published or within two years of this Act being passed, whichever is later.
(3) The scheme must—
(a) define a network and hierarchy of retail centres in the local authority area,
(b) assess the need for development in retail centres,
(c) identify sites for development based on the sequential approach, and
(d) promote retail diversity.
(4) In this section—
(a) ‘retail diversity’ means a mix of retail provision that meets the requirements of the local catchment area in terms of range and quality of comparison and convenience retail businesses;
(b) ‘sequential approach’ means that local planning authorities must identify sites that are suitable, available and viable for development in the following order—
(i) locations in appropriate existing centres;
(ii) edge of centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be well connected to existing retail centres;
(iii) out of centre sites with preference given to sites well served by a choice of transport and are closest to an existing centre.
(5) The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the scheme as he thinks appropriate.
(6) Such a direction must contain the Secretary of State’s reasons for giving it.
(7) The local planning authority must consult with the local community in developing the scheme.
(8) The local community as defined under subsection (7) must include—
(a) a parish council or parish councils authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
(b) a ‘qualifying body’ authorised to act in relation to the neighbourhood area or areas to which the retail diversity scheme relates subject to section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
(c) any other local person at the discretion of the local planning authority.
(9) Where a retail planning application is submitted and there is no retail diversity scheme in place the applicant must provide a statement to the local planning authority that sets out how the development impacts on the criteria identified in subsection (3); and the local planning authority must consult the local community as defined in subsection (8) before coming to a decision on the application.”’.
New clause 30—Planning consent for betting offices
‘(1) That, notwithstanding any existing statutory provision, a local authority may require planning consent to be applied for pursuant to section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and granted prior to the establishment of, or change of use of premises or land to establish, a betting office in that local authority’s area.
(2) “Betting office” means premises, other than a track within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005, in respect of which a betting premises licence under Part 8 of that Act has effect.’.
New clause 31—Change of use class for betting offices
‘The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 is amended as follows—
‘(1) In article 3(6) (exclusion from use classes), at end add—
“(n) as a betting office”.
(2) In Part A (Use Classes) of the Schedule to the principal Order, in Class A2(c) omit “(including use as a betting office)”.
(3) “Betting office” means premises, other than a track within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005, in respect of which a betting premises licence under Part 8 of that Act has effect.’.
New clause 32—Amendment of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
‘In section 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents)—
(a) leave out “(taken as a whole)”,
(b) leave out from “contribute” to “change” and insert—
(i) achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008;
(ii) meet current national policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change, in relation to that area.’.
New clause 34—Guidance on opencast mining: separation zones etc.
‘(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the national planning policy for opencast mining in England within six months of this Act being passed.
(2) The guidance must require a minimum separation zone of 500 metres between the site of an opencast mine and the nearest residential property, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
(3) Mineral planning authorities in England must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when fulfilling their functions.
(4) In this section “opencast mining” means the working of minerals by opencast operations and the carrying out of operations incidental to such working.’.
New clause 35—Scope of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (No.2)
‘The Secretary of State must within 12 months of this Act being passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”) removing permitted development rights specified in neighbourhood development orders from the scope of the GPDO.’.
New clause 36—Scope of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (No.1)
‘The Secretary of State must within 12 months of this Act being passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”) removing land or premises used or formerly used as a public house from the scope of the GPDO.’.
Government amendment 144.
Amendment 293, clause 90, page 61, line 6, at end insert
‘including a County Council, an Integrated Transport Authority for the area or a Marine Plan Authority.’.
Government amendments 145 to 147.
Amendment 294, page 61, line 13, after ‘undertaken’, insert
‘where issues or impacts cross administrative boundaries and with the objective of achieving sustainable development’.
Government amendment 148.
Amendment 295, page 61, line 15, at end insert—
‘(ab) the preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance.’.
Government amendment 149.
Amendment 297, page 61, line 17, at end insert—
‘(d) the preparation of the Local Transport Plan;
(e) the preparation of marine plans; and
(f) other activities that support the planning of development, so far as relating to the development and use of land or sea.’.
Government amendment 150.
Amendment 296, page 61, line 18, leave out from ‘land’ to end of line 20 and insert
‘and strategic infrastructure and in particular the preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance.’.
Amendment 298, page 61, line 20, at end insert—
‘(3A) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) must involve—
(a) a local planning authority who is also a member of a Local Enterprise Partnership as approved by the Secretary of State; and
(b) every other person within subsection (1).
(3B) The preparation of Joint Infrastructure Planning Guidance within subsection (3) includes in particular—
(a) the collection of evidence on issues defined in subsection (3C);
(b) the preparation of policy guidance in relation to issues defined in subsection (3C); and
(c) any other activities that support joint infrastructure planning.
(3C) For the purpose of subsection (3B) the issues to be addressed include—
(a) housing needs;
(b) climate mitigation and adaptation and in particular flood risk;
(c) economic development including retail needs;
(d) energy needs and capacity;
(e) biodiversity;
(f) natural resource use including water management; and
(g) transport.
(3D) The person or bodies defined in subsection (1) must exercise the function of Joint Infrastructure Planning with the aim of achieving sustainable development and must act under guidance, including as to the meaning of sustainable development, as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.’.
Government amendments 151 to 156.
Amendment 299, page 61, line 36, at end insert—
‘(7) In this section—
(a) “marine plan” has the same meaning as in section 51 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
(b) “marine plan authority” has the same meaning as in section 50 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
(c) “sea” has the same meaning as in section 42 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(8) The fulfilment of the duty in subsection (1) shall be regarded as a material consideration by an independent examiner carrying out functions under section 20(7) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.’.
Government amendments 157 and 158.
Amendment 369, clause 95, page 66, line 33, leave out from ‘levy)’ to end of line 38 and insert ‘in subsection (2), after second ‘ensure’, leave out to the end of the subsection and insert
‘that owners and developers of land make a financial contribution to support communities in the area in which their development is situated, including the provision of infrastructure and the building, improvement and renovation of housing.’.
Government amendments 159 and 160.
Amendment 6, schedule 9, page 289, line 23, after ‘live’, insert ‘, or businesses registered,’.
Amendment 7, page 289, line 26, after ‘live’, insert ‘, or businesses registered,’.
Amendment 8, page 289, line 27, at end insert—
(ba) the organisation or body is competent to undertake the task of preparing a neighbourhood plan with appropriate professional support.’.
Amendment 9, page 289, line 27, at end insert—
(ba) the organisation or body is representative of different sections of the community.’.
Amendment 10, page 289, line 28, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘12’.
Government amendments 161 to 163.
Amendment 359, page 292, line 25, at end insert
‘except for the winning and working of minerals in, on or under land by surface working and any associated activity.’.
Government amendments 164 to 168.
Amendment 301, page 298, line 6, at end insert—
‘(1A) A neighbourhood development plan must include policies to—
(a) achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) meet current national policy objectives on assessing the risk of and adapting to climate change, in relation to that area.’.
Government amendments 169 and 170.
Amendment 12, schedule 10, page 300, line 38,
(h) imposing a duty to conduct an equalities impact assessment in line with the Equality Act 2010.’.
Government amendments 171 to 174.
Amendment 11, page 303, line 14, at end insert—
‘(1A) Any person who makes written representations seeking to change a neighbourhood development order must (if he or she so requests) be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.’.
Government amendments 175 to 182.
Amendment 371, clause 102, page 72, line 14, leave out ‘majority’ and insert ‘all’.
Amendment 372, page 72, line 15, at end insert
‘and within a radius of a quarter of a mile from the site of the application’.
Amendment 370, schedule 13, page 327, line 24, at end insert—
55A In section 115(1) after ‘associated development’, insert ‘, except where the associated development is the carrying out or construction of surface works, boreholes or pipes on a site all of which falls within the area of a single local planning authority, where consent for such works should be required from the local planning authority.’.
Government amendments 184 and 258.
Greg Clark
It is a pleasure to be debating planning issues again. I am sorry that that is occasioning an exodus from the Chamber, as I think it is one of the most fascinating parts of the Bill. I cannot promise to emulate the winding-up speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) who, in 30 seconds, gave the finest speech that I have ever heard him give, but I will endeavour to reach those high standards.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) in his place to respond. Those of us who served on the Bill Committee have missed our daily dose of historical education and elucidation, and I dare say that Members who were not on the Committee are in for a treat tonight.
We have a large group of amendments to discuss and so as to avoid the fate of my hon. Friend, I will try to say something about as many as possible of them in my opening remarks so that it may not be necessary to expand at length later in the debate. We made good progress in Committee on this part of the Bill. There was a shared understanding that there were problems with the planning system that have grown up over time, which the Bill provides an opportunity to address. It is not a matter of party political contention that the persistently observed problems with the planning system centre around the fact that over recent years it has been too top-down. People have felt that planning is something that has been done to them, rather than something in which they have had a say or which they have had a chance to influence.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On the abolition of everything that is regional, which is clearly Government policy and has been for some time, the Minister has just indicated that the duty to co-operate was the central plank that would replace on some sort of strategic basis the regional dimension. With hindsight, does he think the Government gave enough attention and thought to how the duty to co-operate should be formulated and how it should work in practice? There seems to have been an awful lot of criticism from everybody with an interest in these matters about the Government’s position in the Bill.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I know that as Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, he has taken a great interest in these matters. I have always been clear that the Bill represents a major change and it behoves any Minister from whatever party to listen to representations and to seek to improve what is a different way of solving a classic problem—planning issues that have a larger than local dimension to them. The previous Government attempted a resolution through regional arrangements. We formed a view, for better or for worse. Some of us on the Government Benches thought that those arrangements should not have been entered into in the first place. Those on the Opposition Benches would reflect, I think, that the arrangements have had their day and should be replaced with a means of addressing larger than local issues that is robust and captures the need for strategic planning. I will go straight to the amendments that relate to that—Government amendments 144 to 158—and say something about the Opposition’s amendments as I do so.
We accepted that there was an opportunity to strengthen the duty to co-operate that was set out in the Bill as originally drafted. Indeed, I perhaps agree that a minimalist view was taken of that duty. We have replaced it with something that enjoys support from a wide range of groups, having reached a form that they endorse as a useful resolution to some of these matters. I pay tribute to the effort and work that many groups outside the House have put into strengthening the duty to co-operate. It would be churlish not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who approached these matters in a similar vein; the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee provided a basis on which to discuss these matters and to make progress.
The duty to co-operate will be significantly strengthened by the amendments that we, as promised, have brought forward. They are modelled closely on what we said was appropriate in Committee and what the Royal Town Planning Institute has proposed. As the professional planning body, it was the organisation that worked most closely on this, but a wide range of other outside bodies were involved, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition, which includes the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Town and Country Planning Association. In particular, we have taken up their suggestions, which were echoed in some of the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, to make clearer the application to cross-boundary issues and to the marine planning system, which needs to be addressed. We have also taken input from the Planning Officers Society, whose members will be charged with meeting the duty to co-operate. As a result of its suggestion, our amendment proposes to put a reference to county councils on to the face of the Bill. That deals with one of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments that he will no doubt talk to shortly.
The combined effect has been to create a much stronger duty to co-operate that covers all authorities and a proposed list of prescribed bodies that themselves would be subject to that duty, because planning matters clearly concern not only local authorities, but other public bodies. I know from speaking with councils up and down the country that one of the frustrations is that they sometimes feel that they have not had the full and enthusiastic co-operation of other public bodies in producing plans that are clearly relevant to them.
I have placed in the Library of the House our draft list of bodies to be included in addition to local authorities. They include the Environment Agency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, Natural England, the Mayor of London, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Homes and Communities Agency, primary care trusts, the Marine Management Organisation, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Highways Agency, Transport for London, integrated transport authorities and highways authorities. I think that it is absolutely right that those public bodies should be required to give every co-operation to local authorities in producing strategic plans that are larger than local plans for their area.
We also propose in these amendments an enabling power that will require all bodies that are subject to the duty to co-operate to have regard to the activities of other bodies when preparing plans that may not have a public character. Foremost among these are local enterprise partnerships. We intend to identify local enterprise partnerships as bodies that the prescribed bodies with the duty to co-operate must take into account and with which they will need to co-operate fully.
The duty to co-operate applies to the preparation of all development plan documents and, in particular, it requires engagement to maximise effectiveness. This cannot be a minimal engagement that simply responds to a questionnaire, which it was feared the original formulation might lead to. There must be active engagement to maximise the effectiveness of all relevant development plan documents. It applies to all strategic issues, which will be interpreted as issues that cross at least two local authority planning areas. It refers to sustainable development, because we know that the environment, in particular, does not stop at local authority boundaries and continues way beyond them, so it is absolutely right that there should be a requirement to co-operate on that. Infrastructure requirements typically go beyond local authority boundaries as well. It requires consideration to be given to the preparation of joint plans and development documents. In particular, I hope and expect that local enterprise partnerships will use their planning powers to pool some of their policies relating to the development of the economy so that they will have attractive, appealing and clear pro-growth policies, especially in areas where there is a need to attract new employers.
The crucial test of the duty to co-operate is the soundness of the plan. If the inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with, the plan will be unsound and cannot be adopted. Therefore, there is an absolute safeguard that this is not just a voluntary activity, but that it is absolutely at the heart of plan making, and rightly so, because the strategic level is very important to emphasise.
The amendment, which is the product of extensive consultation with the professional bodies and some of the other representative bodies, anticipates and deals with many of the amendments that Opposition Front Benchers might be minded to move. If I have time at the end of our considerations on this group, I will respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. In particular, amendment 293 deals with the inclusion of county councils, and that is covered by our amendments. He will have heard me mention integrated transport authorities and the marine planning organisations in the list of prescribed organisations that I intend to publish. Sustainable development is very clearly marked there and is explicitly referenced, as are local transport plans and marine plans.
On this new clause, I can do no better than quote the briefing on that which the Royal Town Planning Institute made available to Members:
“The RTPI has worked closely with the Government on strengthening the arrangements for planning at the larger than local level and believes that the amended Clause 90 should be supported.”
It states that the Government are
“to be congratulated for listening on this issue.”
I hope that we have been able to discharge the commitments that I made in Committee to establish a replacement for the regional arrangements that is rather more robust than the original version.
Let me turn to some of the other new clauses and amendments tabled by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, has asked that at this stage we consider the specific question of whether a definition of sustainable development should be included in the Bill. New clause 2 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and her colleagues, and those on the Opposition Front Bench have tabled some amendments relating to this matter. I will give an indication of the approach I would like to take on this, because it is an area that, as many Members know, is close to by heart. I completely agree that the purpose of planning is to promote sustainable development and that all plans and decisions should reflect that.
New clause 2 captures where we should be, and I certainly undertake to give my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole most of what she seeks. As was always intended, we will bring out a draft national planning policy framework in July, which will have sustainable development at its heart. It will set out what we mean by sustainable development.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will that sustainability—sustainability can, of course, include many different strains—include community sustainability, such as providing for places of worship in local communities?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend anticipates the detail of the national policy planning framework, but at this stage all I would say on sustainable development is that the Government have no issue or disagreement with the classic definitions of it. The Brundtland definition, that development undertaken by this generation should not compromise the ability of future generations to live their lives, has stood the test of time and is very clear. Although I am foreshadowing the content of the framework, I want to give a clear signal to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members that we intend to follow that approach.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
This is a little like having the winding-up speeches before the debate has started, but, in anticipation that there might not be much time to set out the arguments for sustainable development, may I ask the Minister, given what he has said, whether he agrees that there is no substitute for writing sustainable development into legislation? Here we are, yet we do not have the details of the statement that will come out next week or later, so how can we ensure that sustainable development is written into the legislation? Is not that the most important aspect of this exercise?
Greg Clark
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I hope she accepts that we have stated clearly that we are very comfortable with the classic definition of sustainable development, which will be prominent—in fact, it could not be more prominent—in the planning policy framework. She has no grounds for concern. Her Committee asked for an assurance that sustainable development would continue to be part of planning policy, and I take that point.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I wish to return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) made about places of worship. From my discussions with the Minister, I know that he has spoken warm words, but will he use this opportunity to place on the record his broad thinking about how places of worship can be accounted for in planning policy?
Greg Clark
I will resist the temptation to stray from the proposed changes before us. There are amendments that deal in particular with sustainable development, but I say in passing that the opportunity for communities to have and to promote places of worship is a reflection of their sense of community, and we would be wholly in opposition to the direction of the Bill if we had any intention of restricting that—quite the reverse. I do not think that my hon. Friend has any cause for concern.
The previous Government promoted the five principles of sustainable development—living within environmental means, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly—in the sustainable strategy. I have no difficulty with that, and without going into too much detail I would expect those principles to be reflected in planning policy, where they always have been. That has been the place for them.
The challenge from new clause 2—to require sustainable development to be put forward after a period—also carries an important virtue. The national planning policy framework will be subject to consultation, and it is quite right that we should give people the chance to see our definition—I have given a pretty broad steer as to what it will be—and to comment on it, rather than simply capturing something in the Bill now. I would be perfectly relaxed about doing so, but we should give people the chance to reflect on and to add to the definition.
Joan Walley
I hear what the Minister says, but would it not have been more appropriate if we had had that public debate alongside a White Paper, when sustainable development could have been looked at across the range of planning policy, not just as part of the framework to be published shortly? We could have looked at that first, but instead we are considering things in the dark.
Greg Clark
We are not quite in the dark. I hope that I have illuminated some of the dark, given what I have been able to say about the proposed contents of that White Paper. At the time of the Budget, I said that we would try to bring forward the definition a little earlier than the rest of the document, because I know that there is an interest in it. That will at least allow the other place to have the benefit of that thinking. If a greater token of good faith than my words at this Dispatch Box is required, it will appear quite shortly.
I think hon. Members will be satisfied with our approach. I have long regarded the matter as a personal interest, having shadowed the energy and climate change brief in opposition, and there is nothing in our approach that does anything other than enhance matters. By clarifying, and taking away much of the undergrowth around, planning policy, it will make more resonant the principles that the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and my Liberal Democrat hon. Friends so rightly want to promote.
Neighbourhood planning is another important addition to the Bill. I freely accept that the initial version of our clauses on this could have been improved, and I made commitments in Committee that we would reflect on improvements that could be made. The hon. Gentleman was particularly exercised, and indeed lyrical, about the opportunities to improve some of these provisions. He was dismayed that a neighbourhood forum in which these issues could be discussed was liable to take place in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck, thinking that too intimate a space for such a gathering and suggesting that it should be larger. We have reflected on the size of public houses across the country, and we think we need to enable more people to attend the forums.
There is no Dog and Duck in Birmingham, as far as I was able to establish, which is a great disappointment. There was a Dog and Duck in Holloway Head, which is perhaps an area of the city that he knows, but sadly it was demolished some time after 1899. I have brought in this very appealing photograph of the pub, which I will give to the hon. Gentleman so that next time he is in his city he can research its antecedence. I have to say that it does not look the most salubrious of establishments, but then I do not know what his taste is in public houses, and he might regret its disappearance. He may also be dismayed to hear that another public house demolished in Birmingham in recent years was the House That Jack Built. I am sure that that is a source of regret to everyone in Birmingham, but perhaps it is an opportunity for him.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
While my right hon. Friend’s comments are amusing, does he understand the frustration of many of us, including members of the all-party save the pub group, that even after this Bill has been passed, it will remain perfectly possible for people to demolish free-standing pubs without the community having any right to have a say?
Greg Clark
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will say a few words about that in moment, and I hope to give him some comfort. He is absolutely right that one of the types of building that communities value most, whether in towns or villages, is their local pub. The frustration they feel in seeing some of these buildings demolished without the opportunity to do anything about it is a source of great concern. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who snaffled very sharpish the title of “Pubs Minister” when the portfolios were being handed out just after the general election, takes a particular interest in this and has been meeting representatives of the Campaign for Real Ale, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his group.
For Members of the House who were not in Committee, I should explain that we asked a series of questions about neighbourhood planning. First, is it right for neighbourhoods below the local authority level to be able to promote a vision of their future? We agreed that it was. This is easily available to areas that have parish councils or town councils: a standing democratic body is available, so it is easy to give it such powers. The next question is whether areas that do not have parish councils or town councils should be excluded from the ability to have a neighbourhood plan. There is an argument that they can apply for parish status, so we can provide a little bait to attract them towards doing that. Those on both Front Benches reflected on this and agreed that if some parts of the country decided that they did not want a standing parish council or town council but nevertheless wanted a neighbourhood plan, they should not be denied that.
How can we bring together people in those places in an acceptable way to discuss these matters? In the Bill, that question turns on neighbourhood forums. We agreed to increase, through amendments, the minimum number of members of a neighbourhood forum from three—the number at which it was rather unfeasibly set—to 21. Landlords across the country can now count on at least 21 customers being in their snug to discuss neighbourhood plans rather than the minimum of three. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington argued strongly that we should increase the number. We have gone a little beyond the number that he suggested, and that is absolutely right. Government amendment 160 makes that clear.
Amendment 160 also makes it clear that businesses should be involved. Clearly, any conception of a neighbourhood—certainly one that includes a high street—must reflect the fact that sometimes the people who have the interests of the community most at heart and who most epitomise the community are those who run businesses, because they are at the heart of the community. The fact that someone runs a business in a town but lives elsewhere should not preclude them from participating in the neighbourhood forum. We are happy to reflect that point, which again was urged by the hon. Gentleman, in Government amendments.
Annette Brooke
On amendment 160, will the Minister clarify what will be the balance between residents and businesses? The amendment could be read to mean that businesses alone could drive an agenda, which might not be compatible with what the residents want. I wonder whether the wording needs to be looked at again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister resumes, I clarify that he is not supposed to have his back continually to the Chair. He is supposed to address the whole House, not just the Members behind him. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
Greg Clark
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly intended no discourtesy to you or anyone else in the Chamber.
We do not want to be too prescriptive in the rules for neighbourhood forums, because we want as many people to participate as possible. Nevertheless, we have specified the requirement in the examination that they should be open to all. Part of the test that the examiner will make is whether there are sufficient efforts to involve all sections of the community, including businesses and definitely residents. Various types of residents must also be included, because it is important that the whole community is represented. We have also clarified that councillors have a right to be involved in the neighbourhood forum, even if they do not reside in the ward that they represent, as is sometimes the case. I hope that Government amendments 161 and 162 cover the point made by the hon. Lady. If they need strengthening, we are happy to look at them again. I think that they make it clear that forums need to reflect the community and should not allow any narrow interests to dominate. That is one of the most important tests.
Good points were made in Committee by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about cross-border arrangements. I recollect that they share a border in Blackheath. It is important that Blackheath is able to have a neighbourhood plan, and I very much hope that it will. Government amendments, in particular amendment 168, will make that possible, and will ensure that there will be only one plan for the area. It would be wrong for competitive plans for Blackheath to be promoted from the Lewisham side and the Greenwich side. It is important that they work together.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Do the provisions of the Bill apply to urban and metropolitan open spaces in the same way as they do to green belt development?
Greg Clark
If residents so desire, the provisions of a neighbourhood plan can designate spaces that residents want to keep as green space.
The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that it should be possible for the examiners of plans to be planning inspectors or local authority officers. We perhaps erred too much on the side of reassuring residents that they had the right to promote their plan in the face of a recalcitrant local authority, and therefore excluded local authority officers and planning inspectors from being involved. We actually found, to our delight, that there is a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of many local authorities. Where a community and its local authority can happily work together, its officers should not be excluded from being involved.
We have also addressed, in Government amendments 171 and 172, the need for the development of neighbourhood plans to be properly funded, recognising that the capacity of communities varies from place to place. Those amendments give the Secretary of State the power to arrange for payments to be made in support of neighbourhood planning, or for services such as training to be provided.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend gives many words of encouragement to those of us who have tabled amendments. Does he have any such warm words for neighbourhoods that happen to be in a coal mining area and face the threat of open-cast mining applications? They would like to be able to include that matter in their neighbourhood plans.
Greg Clark
I was going to come on to my hon. Friend’s amendments, but since he raises the matter I will turn to them now. I will have to disappoint him. Neighbourhood plans are conceived as being about issues that just affect neighbourhoods. Although mineral extraction has consequences for particular neighbourhoods, it is clearly larger than a local matter. It has consequences for the wider authority and, in many cases, for national Government. It is not right to expect neighbourhood plans to govern mineral extraction, which goes beyond their scope.
Joan Walley
The issue of open-cast coal mining is critical, particularly in former coal mining areas. If there is going to be a presumption in favour of mineral extraction instead of that being balanced with environmental considerations, that suggests that there will be no commitment whatever to sustainable development at the heart of planning policy. If people cannot prevent open-cast coal mining, or have their view of it taken on board, that will send out a strong message to them that they will not have any say in future developments in their locality.
Greg Clark
No, the hon. Lady has got it wrong. We are talking about neighbourhood planning, but of course a whole panoply of other planning policy applies. There is absolutely no intention to remove the test of sustainability for mineral extraction or any other proposal, and that will be a matter for national policy. I do not underestimate in any way the importance of open-cast mining for the communities in which it takes place, but neighbourhood plans are not the mechanism to control it. I hope most hon. Members will see that.
Greg Clark
I will make some progress, and then perhaps my hon. Friend can come in again. I know that a lot of Members want to speak.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who made many helpful and constructive suggestions in Committee, has tabled two amendments. We will require the examiner of plans to take oral evidence if people want to submit it, but we will leave him or her to make the judgment about whether that is an attempt to delay the process or reflects a genuine appetite. Similarly, his amendment 12 is unnecessary because the Bill already allows prescribed steps to be taken in the examination of a neighbourhood plan, including the consideration of questions about participation. However, we will carefully consider whether an equalities impact assessment is appropriate.
On heritage issues, our amendments correct a misdrafting that seemed to put in doubt the protection that conservation areas and listed buildings receive in the neighbourhood planning process. That was never our intention. Happily, working with the heritage groups, we have been able to agree a set of measures that address that problem.
I wish to say a little about town centres, because I know that an amendment on the subject has been tabled. Policy on town centres has always been part of national planning policy, and I believe that is right. However, as I have done on the subject of sustainable development, I wish to signal clearly the importance of having robust policy, including the sequential test that is currently in planning policy statement 4. That will absolutely be in place, and it will be clear in the new national planning policy framework.
The Association of Convenience Stores wants, to its credit, to keep this issue live and in the forefront of our minds. I am happy that it does so, but it need have no concerns. This Government’s attitude to town centres is absolutely clear: they are at the heart of our communities and nothing should be done that would disadvantage them or jeopardise that.
Government new clause 15 deals with local finance matters, which has caused the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and his colleagues some concern in recent days. The proposal makes it clear that local finance matters that are relevant to planning considerations can be taken into account. It does not change the law in any way, and it is not some stealthy way in which to introduce a new basis for planning policy. Everyone knows that section 106 payments that are material in planning matters can be taken into consideration. The new clause reflects the fact that the introduction of the community infrastructure levy, and, potentially, other rebates to the local community, as I like to call them, can be used for planning purposes. It is important to be clear, lest there is any doubt on the part of local authorities, that such rebates, just like under section 106, can be made when they are relevant to planning considerations.
Amendment 369, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), suggests that CIL should be used more widely for housing and other local infrastructure. It is important that planning committees, which are sometimes nervous and conservative about such matters, are reassured that the use of the CIL for appropriate planning purposes is perfectly legitimate and that it can be taken into account in planning decisions.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister implies that there is no change in policy as a result of new clause 15, but may I remind him that until three months ago, his Department’s stance was that financial matters could not be regarded as material considerations? His Department’s response to the consultation on the new homes bonus scheme affirmed that the new homes bonus cannot change the position that financial matters are not to be regarded as material considerations. New clause 15 changes that completely, and changes the presumption that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, which has been in the planning system for years. That is an extremely dangerous move, and I am astonished that the Minister has come to it only after 35 minutes of his speech. He has dealt with a lot of detail, but he has not addressed the fundamental threat that new clause 15 poses to the integrity of the planning system.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured that the measure is not a fundamental threat. Rather, it is an incidental measure for clarification. As he knows, section 106 payments have always been taken into account. There is no change in the policy whatever. He misquotes the response to the consultation on the new homes bonus, which is as valid today as it was when it was published. The response states that
“the new Homes Bonus is not intended to encourage housing development which would otherwise be inappropriate in planning terms”
and that local authorities
“cannot take into account immaterial considerations.”
Therefore, local finance considerations, like any other considerations, should be taken into account only if they are material to the application that is being considered. Let me give an example to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if it is perfectly appropriate for a payment made under a section 106 agreement to be taken into account by the planning authority, it would be perfectly reasonable for the CIL, for example, to be used to provide investment in a road scheme that accommodates a development. If a planning authority considers that to be material, it is perfectly reasonable to take it into account. The measure simply clarifies that if payments other than section 106 payments can be used for matters that are material to the application, it is legitimate to take them into account.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister will have to do better. He should consider whether he is being absolutely open with the House about the significance of the change. The existing presumption is that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, and that financial considerations are not material. He will know that section 106 agreements are negotiated only after planning consent has been granted. There should be no question about that. However, he is clearly muddying the waters—his language implies that—and by making a financial consideration a material consideration, he is undermining the planning system. I urge him to reconsider.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman is disappointed that this is not the cunning plot that he sensed it might be. It is a straightforward clarification, and he needs to accept that it is not what he thought it was. It is a simple and straightforward clarification brought about by the fact that it has been suggested in the press that some of these payments cannot be taken into account. It is important that councils understand that, where it is relevant to the planning matter in hand—but not otherwise—they can continue to take it into account. That is no different from the present situation, and it is important to clarify that.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I would like to press the Minister on his response to my amendment 369. I will make my point by way of example: the Shard, being built by London bridge, will attract community infrastructure levy section 106 money, and the local authority might want to renovate the local council or housing association estates nearby, or to build new social housing. Will he assure me that the Bill will make that possible?
Greg Clark
New clause 15 clarifies that it is reasonable for a planning authority to take such funds into account if they are to be used in connection with the planning application. On the use to which the funds are put, I know that in Committee my right hon. Friend and the Opposition Front-Bench team considered whether the provision could be drawn more widely to include affordable housing. It has not been possible to draw up a definitive amendment in time for Report, but I am sympathetic to those concerns, so we will introduce further suggestions in the Lords.
Heidi Alexander
Earlier in his remarks, the Minister was quick to quote the Royal Town Planning Institute on the progress that he would say has been made on the duty to co-operate, so could he tell me, in relation to new clause 15, why the RTPI writes:
“The Government’s new amendment to make financial considerations a material consideration is deeply flawed and potentially very damaging to proper planning and contradicts assurances given by ministers just 12 weeks ago”?
What does he have to say to the RTPI?
Greg Clark
I have given clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that this is not what the RTPI perhaps suspected or what the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich clearly suspected: that this was some grand plan to—as he put it—buy and sell planning permission. That is not the case. There is no change in the dispensation.
Greg Clark
I give way to the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.
Mr Betts
I want to get down to practicalities. Given that these matters are now material considerations, is it not the case that when an application comes before a local planning authority, the officer of that authority will have a responsibility to explain in their recommendations precisely what financial considerations there are and how much will be gained by the authority and the community from granting the application? That is completely different from any present requirement on any planning officer to explain any financial matters before the planning committee makes a decision on an application.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister replies, I want to say that this is a very important point, and I am allowing the interventions to run longer than normal because of its complexity. Can we bear it in mind, however, that we still have a lot of business to get through?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. It is not required that the planning application should be determined on the basis of the financial flow. It is relevant only if it relates to the planning matter before the authority. For example, if the community infrastructure levy is to be used to pay for an access road, it is perfectly reasonable—this is clarified in the new clause—for that to be taken into account by the local authority.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the technical deficiencies in new clause 4 to me, and particularly for doing so at 9 o’clock this evening. However, aside from the technical deficiencies, what is the Government’s view of the principle? I can work on the robustness of the new clause if the Government can give me their view in principle.
Greg Clark
I will explain, although I will shortly draw my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that other Members want to speak. As my hon. Friend and all other members of the Committee know, my view is that we should move away from a system of planning by development control, where recourse is made to the Planning Inspectorate rather than local decision makers, which is how the future of our communities has been developed. I want fewer appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and more decided locally. Doing that means plan-making becoming a much more prominent part of the process. Neighbourhood plans and pre-application scrutiny—and, incidentally, neighbourhood plans becoming part of the development plan, even if the local authority disapproves —along with the abolition of regional imposition and the prevention of the inspector from simply rewriting plans are all geared towards making the plan prominent and, indeed, sovereign. When we are dealing with the legitimate concerns of communities that feel that developments that they do not want have been imposed on them, my concern is to strengthen their ability to control the process by participating in plan-making.
Greg Clark
I will continue to make a bit of progress, then I will certainly give way to my hon. Friends.
Taking away some of those appeals for determination by an undemocratic body, rather than by local authorities on the basis of a plan, is the wrong thing to do, and would also elevate the status of planning officers above members. Such an approach would essentially say to planning committees that they should either agree with their planning officers or risk facing an appeal. That is the wrong approach. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay will shortly see evidence in the national planning policy framework of my absolute intention to make plans sovereign, so that it is not possible simply to set aside democratically agreed local plans in response to particular pressures.
There is also a case for looking at the fact that the costs of losing appeals can sometimes hang over local authorities. Sometimes the threat of losing an appeal dissuades a local authority from turning down an application that it might want to turn down. We should look at that, to ensure that it will be possible for local authorities robustly to stick to their local plans.
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend will remember visiting my constituency to meet local residents who were fighting against unwanted developments in Micklethwaite and Menston. The logic of what he is saying seems to be that the appeal process should be evened up to deprive the developer of the opportunity to take their plans to appeal. Is that what he is proposing? One way or another, the plans should be equal between the developer and the local residents. On the basis of what he has just said, can he clarify whether he is going to stop developers having the right to appeal?
Greg Clark
I know that my hon. Friend withdrew an amendment proposing to deprive developers or property owners of their right to appeal. He will know, as a robust free-marketeer, that when planning consent was nationalised, it took away people’s opportunity to do what they wanted with their property, and that that became subject to the right of appeal. I think that that is a reasonable safeguard. I want to make the local plan clear and sovereign, so that it becomes the determinant of planning applications, so that they do not need to go to appeal.
George Hollingbery
In my little local town of Bishop’s Waltham, a supermarket is being built outside the local plan. Is the Minister saying that the sovereignty of local plans will be such that there will be no out-of-plan developments at all, even for supermarkets in small market towns?
Greg Clark
The combination of neighbourhood plans and local plans in the new system will be much more robust than at present. My hon. Friend can reasonably expect that they will govern the decisions that are taken. Too often at the moment, an appearance before the planning committee is merely the first step on the way to an appeal, and that is the wrong way to do planning.
I want briefly to refer to the amendments on betting shops tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I know from our conversations that he is very concerned about the proliferation of betting shops in his community and elsewhere. We announced in the Budget a review of how use class orders, relating to a change in use, are handled in the planning system. I will ensure that a specific part of that review deals with the very real issue in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and we will look at what can be done to make progress in that regard.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
When the Minister undertakes that review and looks into the issue, will he consider the fact that there are clusters of betting shops in many high streets, including Deptford high street in my constituency, and that they are crowding out regeneration and diversity of retail? This proliferation of betting shops is blighting many areas. He needs to take into account not only changes of use but the fact that there are far too many instances of this single type of operation being clustered in one street, which I am sorry to say attracts a lot of antisocial behaviour.
Greg Clark
I understand the right hon. Lady’s point. This is something that is reflected across the country. One aspect of neighbourhood planning will look at the character of high streets, in particular, to ensure a proper diversity of uses.
Greg Clark
I will not give way, because I want to conclude my remarks. We have only 50 minutes left, and a lot of Members wish to speak.
I hope that I have been able to cover the great majority of the new clauses and amendments in this group. I know that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will want to have his say, as well as Back Benchers. These measures represent a significant development in our planning procedures. They will correct some long-standing flaws, which have resulted in people not having an opportunity to have their say in plan making from the beginning. They will give neighbourhoods the opportunity to have their vision of the community promoted as part of the local development plan. I will conclude my remarks now, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I will speak to Opposition amendments 293 to 299, amendment 301 and new clauses 29 and 32; and I shall deal with some Government amendments.
On health, the Government gave not an inch in Committee, got it badly wrong and then paused for thought. On localism, the Government admitted in Committee that they had got it badly wrong. They committed to making changes and are now bringing forward 234 new clauses and amendments—more than the entirety of provisions in the original Bill.
There are some moves in the right direction. The Government have, for example, accepted our amendment to protect our national heritage and our great historic buildings, which was warmly welcomed by English Heritage. This Bill, however, like the Health and Social Care Bill, remains a bad Bill.
The Government have moved on the duty to co-operate, admitting that the original proposals did not go far enough. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), a decent man with an open mind, acknowledged to the Committee that the Government needed to strengthen the duty to co-operate and, in his words,
“to make it bite and to make it more encompassing than it is.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 15 February 2011; c. 599.]
The progress made, however, is extremely limited. It is clear that the Secretary of State, a man with a closed mind, sat on his Ministers—a fate too awful to contemplate. Since the Committee stage we have had additional changes to digest emerging from the Budget and those 234 new clauses and amendments. I am afraid to say that the sum total of the changes proposed is confusion, chaos and nothing short of a car crash.
Since taking power, the Government have moved at breakneck speed to demolish the planning system and to rebuild it within a matter of months. The demolition is nearly complete, with the end of sensible regional strategic planning, including the folly of the abolition of the regional development agencies and their replacement with local economic partnerships with no powers and no money—all because the Secretary of State gets out the clove of garlic and the cross at the very mention of “regional”.
As the dust settles, has it all been worth it? How does the Minister view the planning landscape? Are we about to see a new streamlined planning process delivering housing, economic growth, action on climate change and the environment, and transport and infrastructure while also empowering people? Are we going to see that rise from the ashes?
Jack Dromey
With respect, I took many interventions in Committee, but now that the Minister has taken the best part of an hour, I am determined to get through my remarks so that we can hear the maximum number of contributions from Back Benchers on both sides.
Ending up in a pickle, the Government have produced a system that is desperately unfit for purpose. It is important to remember the purpose of planning. Good planning is a vital tool for delivering the necessary development, while also delivering on sustainable development. Planning should integrate the needs of the economy with environmental and social goals to create sustainable communities and retain and enhance our cultural, historic and landscape assets.
We support any sensible reform. We accept that the system the Government inherited was, like any planning system, capable of improvement. We agree that increased local input by local people and local communities for the future of their areas and their built environment is absolutely vital to the success of any planning system. The reformed planning system, however, must be able to meet key tests and objectives. The system must be able to meet our growing housing need and in the right areas.
Jack Dromey
I intend to finish my speech soon, for reasons that I have already given. In a debate lasting less than two hours, a Minister spoke for the best part of an hour. I want to allow time for the maximum number of contributions to be made by Back Benchers.
Annette Brooke
I shall be very brief. I share concerns about Government new clause 15 even after the Minister’s assurances. If bringing financial considerations into the Bill is not going to make any difference, why include the measure? I am afraid that I have not got my head around that and I am very concerned that we do not have time to discuss this in depth and understand the impact of the change.
New clause 2, which is tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, was inspired by a report of the Environmental Audit Committee and we have tried to pick up on its main points. I sincerely believe that we need a definition of sustainable development in the context of the Bill and I share some of the concerns about how we can get the right balance between the pursuit of economic growth and making sure that economic growth is sustainable. Wherever that definition falls, it has to be in such a form that it can be developed downwards and interpreted by local communities, but also, in a sense, developed upwards within the national planning policy framework. That is quite a challenge. I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to accept what is in the new clause, but I hope that, as he is reflecting, he will also take on board some of the points that were made within the context of new clause 6.
On new clause 4, I welcome the Minister’s comments about strengthening the basis of local plans. Throughout my time as chairman of planning it was very frustrating when there were attempts to override the local plan and one felt that one had to give in under the threat of costs. At the back of my mind, I still think that there ought to be a community right of appeal as a backstop, perhaps on much more limited terms than in the new clause. Obviously, there is still time to reflect on that.
I remain concerned about the wording of Government amendment 160 and I hope that will be looked at.
Mr Lammy
Given what the Minister has said, I rise to speak to my new clauses 30 and 31. It cannot be right that there are nine betting shops on one stretch of high street in Green Lanes or that there are 10 betting shops within 300 metres of Ealing Broadway station. It cannot be right that there are 60 gambling establishments within just 300 metres of the pagoda in Chinatown. The gambling industry and bookmakers in particular are flouting the gambling rules; they are opening up right across London and it is unacceptable. That is not to say that we want to condemn gambling—I like to gamble—but it is to say that when it comes to diversity on the high street, local communities and local authorities should have the planning powers to say, “Enough is enough,” “No, thank you,” and “No more.” That is why I think, and I am supported by London councils on this, that betting shops should be in a sui generis class of their own in the same way as casinos and amusement arcades.
I shall force new clause 31 to a vote because I am not satisfied that the Minister is not just kicking this issue into the long grass. There has been a campaign by London Citizens and there is a continuing campaign by faith communities on the issue. Right across London, people are sick to death of seeing one betting shop after another.
It is a great shame that the old Hackney town hall has been turned into a Coral bookmakers. It is unacceptable that countless pubs across the country are being turned into bookmakers. That is the case for every single class use—A2, which is meant to be for building societies and banks, drinking establishments under A4, as has been mentioned, take-aways under A5, and restaurants and cafes under A3. That is why we need action, and why I had hoped the Minister would say that he accepted the amendment, as leaders of councils across London have requested. It is unacceptable to kick the matter into the long grass. I urge the Minister to think again.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
I shall speak briefly to new clause 5, which stands in my name. The new clause is designed to allow the Secretary of State to change, by order, any piece of planning legislation that is causing any planning authority problems in carrying out its statutory duties or where a particular piece of planning legislation is causing local public controversy. I appreciate that this is an extensive power for the Secretary of State, but I also propose, as part of the same amendment, a strong safeguard in that a variation in the law may be made only if it has been subject to a positive resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
The need for such a power is evidenced by an issue in my constituency. Brighton Marina was built in the 1970s following the lengthy passage of the Brighton Marina Act 1968. The marina is located in an undercliff location on land that was reclaimed from the sea. From the coast road anyone looking at the marina can gaze downwards to see the boats, shops, restaurants, businesses and low-rise accommodation located there. For many years the 1968 Act has been taken to mean that any development above cliff height would be only for ancillary works, such as lamp posts and fencing.
However, in recent years, that has been challenged by proposals for housing development that would rise well above the cliff height. One such scheme was agreed by Brighton and Hove city council but not acted on, and one was turned down by the council. That refusal was sustained last year by my right hon. Friend on appeal, for which I am grateful. Both these developments were highly controversial and there was a clear difference of opinion between residents and the planning authority as to the intention of the 1968 Act. If my amendment to the Bill had been in place, that difference of opinion would not have occurred, because the legislation would have been crystal clear. Instead, we have had years of wrangling and uncertainty and still have no clear view of the meaning of the 1968 Act even now.
The thrust of the coalition Government’s policy is to simplify, eliminate and clarify the rules, regulations and legislation faced daily by the public and businesses. My new clause would add significantly to the practical implementation of that policy, and I commend it to the House.
Joan Ruddock
I shall speak to new clauses 30 and 31, with reference to Deptford high street in my constituency. It is one of the oldest and most historic in the country. Although the area is one of multiple deprivation, it has a diverse and vibrant community, a good retail offer and a thriving local market. In recent years we have seen a proliferation of betting shops, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who tabled the new clauses, described from his own constituency experience.
The problem in Deptford started with Coral, which took over a shop that had been used as an art gallery and café, and moved away only because it was so hugely successful that it needed bigger premises. There followed a succession of developments that took many of our most historic buildings and iconic pubs, such as the John Evelyn and the Deptford Arms.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Bill does not go far enough in protecting assets that are of community value from being transferred to the private sector and that this is something that the Government should have allowed time for us to debate properly tonight?
Joan Ruddock
I very much agree.
There have been the changes of use on Deptford high street that I have described, but at the same time there has been a determination to improve it, and after years of battling we secured the funds, with the co-operation of a Labour Government, for a new station at Deptford and we expected new development to follow. However, who will want to live where they will look out on such a high street? As local campaigner Sue Lawes has described, at No. 14 we have Better Betting, at Nos. 34 to 40 we have William Hill, at No. 44 we have The Money Shop, for payday loans, at Nos. 49 to 50 we have Ladbrokes, at No. 55 we have Paddy Power, at No. 60 we have Fish Brothers pawnbrokers, at No. 70 we have Coral and at No. 72 we have H&T pawnbrokers. The final straw is Betfred’s application to take over the old Halifax building. There the change of use would have been required because it was restricted specifically to use by a building society.
The council has of course turned down that application and said, quite reasonably, that there are already far too many betting shops in the area and that it is unnecessary. They say that within the designated core shopping frontage the number of betting shops has reached
“beyond an acceptable level, detracting from the range of retail services available within the defined District Town Centre”.
Betfred has of course appealed. We await the result of that appeal with interest.
I put it to the Minister that it cannot be acceptable that, in an area of great deprivation but great spirit, local residents, 700 of whom have signed a petition, have no say in what is done there. I suggest not only that local people must have a say, but that others need to be protected from this kind of proliferation. Surely this is a community that can ill afford to spend what little money it has in betting shops on this scale. I am not opposed to betting; none of us is. It is the cluster effect and the proliferation that must be dealt with, and I very much hope that he will see that that is done.
Philip Davies
I am surprised at the lack of faith that the right hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have in their own constituents, because betting shops of course go where there is a demand for them. If there was no demand for them on the high streets in Lewisham and Tottenham, presumably some of them would close down.
Philip Davies
No, because I do not have enough time.
The fact that these betting shops have not closed down indicates that the right hon. Member’s constituents want to use them, which makes them viable. I commend the right hon. Gentleman in particular for leading with his chin on this issue, because of course it was the Gambling Act 2005 that removed the unstipulated demand test. He was not only a member of the Government at the time, but in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which introduced the Act which he now finds so offensive. I hope that the Minister will resist the siren voices from the Opposition Benches calling on him to do something about the general principle of supply and demand, which I hope he, as a staunch supporter of the free market, will stick to.
I want to touch on new clause 7, which I have tabled, which relates to casinos. It would give all 600 local authorities fairly and equally the power to decide whether to allow the licensing of casino premises in their areas. The location of casinos was determined by legislation back in 1972, which identified 53 permitted areas on the basis of population data as it stood at the time and added a number of seaside towns. That information is now woefully outdated and denies many local authorities access to investment and jobs and unfairly constrains and confines legitimate and licensed businesses. Despite the emergence of new towns and new centres of population, there have been no changes at all to those permitted areas in almost 40 years. A casino licensed in an existing permitted area can move premises only within the same permitted area in which it was licensed; it may not even transfer to another permitted area, even if a local authority wants it. Those anachronistic and ridiculous constraints have enabled casinos, ironically given our previous discussion, to be crowded into outdated permitted areas. Through my new clause I do not seek to allow any more casinos in this country, even though I probably would not object to that in principle; the same limit would apply to casinos throughout the country. All my new clause would mean was that casinos were able to apply to be outside the existing 53 permitted areas, if local authorities wanted them. We would be giving every local authority the chance to have a casino in their area, if they want it, rather than sticking to outdated rules from more than 40 years ago.
Joan Walley
I will be brief, because there were many references to sustainable development not only in the Minister’s introductory comments, but in the speech that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made.
The Minister made what was effectively a winding-up speech at the outset, and I rather suspect that the whole debate about sustainable development will be discussed further in the other place, so I want to send the most powerful message that I can, stating that when that debate takes place we should not just be satisfied with legislation that relates to guidance or with a new framework policy document that might come out in the near future; we should make sure that Parliament defines sustainable development and sets it out clearly in relation to this Bill, in this Bill.
My amendment is supported not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Communities and Local Government Committee, but by Friends of the Earth, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Wildlife and Countryside League, the Woodland Trust, WWF UK and many more.
I simply say this by way of a message to the other place. The previous Parliament proposed that the Procedure Committee should allow the recommendations of Select Committees, when there has been a unanimous decision and report, to become material considerations as legislation goes through this place. Were that the case now, I have no doubt that it would have brought forward an opportunity to consider precisely what the Environmental Audit Committee’s short, sharp inquiry, which is tagged with today’s business, recommended—namely, that there should be a definition of sustainable development to allow for future progress, and that the Localism Bill should include a statutory duty to apply the principles of sustainability to the planning system and other functions of local government, and set out that definition.
We have not got that far with our modernisation of parliamentary procedure, but in the interim I genuinely hope that those valid concerns will be taken into account, so that we have not a whitewash but a means of balancing what many Opposition Members think, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, are now going to be financial considerations, giving developers free rein to do what they like, with the real principles of sustainable development.
Simon Hughes
I will be literally a minute, because many colleagues wish to speak. This is not quite the way I would have chosen to spend my birthday evening, but there we go.
I want to ensure that the Minister has not ignored my amendments 371, 372 and 370. The first two would require planning authorities to be more effective in their consultation on a planning application, and I suggest that within a quarter of a mile radius of the application site is a much more precise definition than just “the vicinity”.
I welcome the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and the fact that the arrangements will be taken back into a democratically accountable planning system. In the case of a big scheme such as the one that we may have coming down the track in Southwark for the great Thames sewerage main, I hope that we can still allow local authorities the ability to make the planning decision where there is a large structure in a borough on a particular site that is a unique part of the development. Of course there must be a bigger authority taking a strategic national decision, but where there is a local site of significance, the local authority should have a supplementary power to make that decision too. I hope that at some stage I will get positive noises from the Minister and that we might get appropriate changes at the other end of the building.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my amendments 11 and 12, which are to do with the right to be heard and equalities. It is very important that individuals and groups have the right to be heard in neighbourhood planning. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I think he was saying that there would be a presumption in favour of this, but I would be keen to see what criteria people will be using to guard against that happening for a mischievous purpose, or whatever. If the Minister is saying that there is a presumption in favour of oral representation where people want to take that option, that is very important.
On equalities, it is important, under the Equalities Act 2010, to demonstrate that certain people are under-represented in the decision-making process. In 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its first triennial review “How fair is Britain?”, which identified the decline in opportunities for individuals to contribute to decisions that affect their lives as a major risk factor in moving towards a fairer society. I think the Minister said that there is no need for concern about this but that he will consider it further and ensure that equalities legislation is operable in these terms. If that is the case, I welcome it.
Greg Mulholland
I will try to keep my comments brief; realistically, with four minutes to go, I probably cannot keep them any briefer. I know the age of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but I will not reveal it at this stage and just wish him a happy birthday.
I support a levelling of the planning process either by a third-party right of appeal or by the abolition of a developer’s right of appeal. Had the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend been one that would work, I would certainly have supported it. I have just been involved in a planning process in Adel in Leeds, where we had an absolutely farcical situation in which David Wilson Homes, the developer, withdrew its scheme halfway through an appeal, but the system still allowed it to reapply for outline planning permission, which it then got. That was an absolute farce—an entirely shoddy, underhand and anti-localist way of doing things. I want to bring that to Ministers’ attention.
On pubs, there has been a lot of talk about the Duck and Drake—the many Duck and Drakes in the country. There is no finer place to hold a neighbourhood forum than in a pub. However, in terms of what this Bill does to strengthen communities’ hands in protecting pubs, the most appropriate pub name would probably be the Hot Air Balloon. As I have said to Ministers before, I am afraid that there is very little in the Bill, as it stands, to give communities a greater say. At the moment, although there have been changes, it remains perfectly legal to demolish a free-standing pub without planning permission. The Bill does nothing to change the fact that a pub can become a restaurant, a café, a betting shop or a payday loans shop without communities having any say whatsoever. If the Bill is to do anything to strengthen the hands of local communities, there are simple ways of doing that that do not prevent pubs from being developed when they are genuinely unviable.
On behalf of the all-party save the pub group, I have put this question to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is the community pubs Minister, but I have not had an answer: do the Government, who claim to be a pro-pub Government, think it is right that profitable pubs that are wanted by their communities are being closed every single day? If the Government do not believe that that is right—I do not believe that any hon. Member in this House believes that it is—they must do something about it. I regret to say that at this stage, there is nothing in the Localism Bill that does that. I know that we will carry on this discussion, and I look forward to doing that and taking up the Minister’s offer of a meeting. However, at the moment, it is simply not good enough. If he, the ministerial team and the Government believe in pubs and in genuine localism, they must do more in this Bill. Otherwise, it will be a real opportunity wasted.