Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we can support the creation of a regime for mayoral development orders, which we see as being uncontroversial. We are certainly supportive of proposals that can improve the delivery of new housing in London, and we note that London Councils and the GLA have expressed support for MDOs.
From discussion in Committee in the Commons, it has been confirmed today that such orders have to be initiated by the London boroughs themselves, and a particular benefit will be supporting the development of complex cross-boundary situations. Can the Minister say a little more about the extent to which they might be used within a particular boundary and not on a cross-border basis? It is presumed that we will not get the underpinning regulations by the end of this Parliament, unless the Minister can tell us otherwise. We note that the negative procedure is to be adopted. Perhaps the Minister might say when they are expected to be ready.
On housing numbers for London, what the Minister said in the other place has been confirmed today: there is an annual shortfall in capacity of between 7,000 and 20,000 homes. It was less than clear from the exchanges at the other end the contribution that MDOs might make in addressing that shortfall. I think the proposition was that they might speed things up, but whether they will have broader impact will be interesting to hear.
A further point, for which there was no satisfactory answer, was how MDOs can contribute to more affordable housing. Can the Minister confirm that Section 106 agreements will not operate for MDOs? If that is not the case, how will MDOs impact on the obligation to provide affordable housing? If this is the case, how will it be assured that the provision of affordable housing will be forthcoming, and what is the mechanism? It would be helpful to have clarity on that point. Nothwithstanding that, as I have said, we do not oppose the new clauses and will support them.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, there is indeed a broad consensus across this range of issues. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether these orders could be used within a local authority rather than just across boundaries. Indeed they can, and of course local development orders are already available to local authorities, but they may wish to tap into the additional capacity and capability that is available in the mayor’s office for particularly complex projects. There may be occasions when that happens, and our expectation is that it will be primarily for the kind of sites that are complex enough to cross boundaries. Obviously, that happens quite often in London. Secondary legislation will appear in due course—a phrase with which I am afraid the House is probably very familiar—but at this point I think we can say with some confidence that that will be in the next Parliament.
I share the noble Lord’s understanding of Section 106, and he will be aware that the voice of local authorities is very powerful on this issue in shaping the kinds of development that they see as appropriate for their communities. It is not the mayor imposing a vision on local authorities, but rather local authorities looking to use the capacity that is on offer from the mayor in order to move developments forward proactively. Its primary purpose in all the discussions with London Councils and others has been to emphasise the importance of accelerating new housing development across the city.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, in discussing these amendments I shall include Amendments 28 and 36. These amendments deal with the Government’s public sector land programme, which has successfully released land for almost 98,000 new homes to date. We fully expect to meet our 100,000 homes target by March this year. Looking ahead to the next Parliament, we have an even more ambitious target, which aims to deliver land for a further 150,000 homes. This programme will be led by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, and will mean transferring a significant amount of government land into their ownership.
Clause 28 will ensure that future purchasers of land owned by the Homes and Communities Agency, the Greater London Authority and the mayoral development corporations will be able to develop and use land without being affected by easements and other rights and restrictions. Clause 28 will bring the position of purchasers of land from the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs into line with those presently enjoyed by purchasers from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development. This in turn will enable us to increase the attractiveness of surplus public sector land to developers, thus ensuring that we can facilitate the development of much needed new homes and support economic growth by removing obstacles to development while achieving best value for the taxpayer.
I want to be clear, however, that where the HCA or the GLA currently retains the freehold in the land and leases that land to developers, the powers to override third-party rights and restrictions are already exercisable on that land under existing legislation. There has to date been a degree of uncertainty on this point, which I understand has resulted in delays to certain developments in London. Amendment 13 seeks to provide an assurance that where the HCA or the GLA retains the freehold of land, the powers to override third-party rights and restrictions in land already apply under existing legislation, and we are happy to provide that clarity.
I turn now to Amendments 14, 28 and 36. Perhaps I may move on to the related matter of the Greater London Authority’s powers to incur expenditure on the transport elements of housing and regeneration projects. This important issue was raised in the other place during Committee and the Government promised to look urgently at the legislative options available to address it. We concluded that it was necessary to make a minor change to the GLA Act 1999 and have therefore made the proposed amendment.
Amendment 14 removes a prohibition in Section 31 of the GLA Act 1999 that prevents the GLA incurring expenditure on anything that may be done by its functional body, Transport for London. We are making this change to the GLA Act because the GLA has said that TfL’s powers are wide-ranging and therefore preclude the GLA from incurring expenditure on anything transport-related when undertaking housing or regeneration projects.
The prohibition excludes the GLA from incurring expenditure on projects that the GLA has been responsible for since 1 April 2012 when it took on the roles, land and contracts of the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency in London. Without this amendment, around 50 projects worth over £200 million would have to stop. This includes work which the GLA has been funding with the London borough councils to revitalise high streets, including in Deptford, Bromley and Cricklewood. It also affects new initiatives to deliver new homes such as housing zones and at Barking Riverside.
Amendment 36 allows for the clause to come into effect on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent and that it will apply in relation to expenditure incurred by the GLA before as well as after the coming into force of the new clause. This is because it was clearly the intention of Parliament that the GLA should have equivalent powers to the former London Development Agency and the Homes and Communities Agency, following the Localism Act 2011. Amendment 28 limits the geographical extent to England and Wales.
Making these changes to the GLA Act 1999 is therefore essential to ensure that the GLA can deliver new homes and jobs for London. I beg to move that this House accepts these Commons amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we consider these amendments uncontroversial and are happy to support them. We particularly see the thrust of Amendment 14 and the need to change what is clearly an unintended provision in the 1999 Act. It is indeed perverse if because of the existing powers the GLA is precluded from incurring expenditure on anything transport-related, such as transport-related projects to deliver housing, jobs and growth in London. That cannot be right, which is why we support the amendments.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 23. In discussing Amendment 23, I will also include Amendments 34, 40 and 48. The Board of Public Works Loan Commissioners, commonly known as the Public Works Loan Board or PWLB, is a statutory body that dates back to the Public Works Loan Act 1875. It comprises 12 loan commissioners appointed by the Crown to administer making loans to local authorities. The commissioners are independent of government and unpaid by law. Under Section 4 of the National Loans Act 1968, the PWLB currently has a statutory lending limit of £70 billion. The current level of debt amounts to £64 billion. The original role of the loan commissioners was to approve and issue central government loans to certain categories of permitted borrowers. Under the 1875 Act and subsequent legislation, the commissioners have the power to refuse a loan on the basis of lack of security, and to appoint a secretary who can hold security and to whom the powers of the commissioners can be delegated. The commissioners are also required to issue an annual report to Parliament setting out details of loans advanced by the PWLB.
However, since 2004 decisions on borrowing have been fully devolved to local authorities under the prudential regime. As part of the local authorities’ self-regulated regime, local authorities are free to finance capital projects by borrowing without requiring government consent, provided they can afford to service their debts out of their revenues. This means that the decision-making functions of the PWLB commissioners are essentially obsolete. Local authorities are responsible for their own decisions on whether to borrow and how much. Further, the day-to-day operations of providing loans are now carried out by the Debt Management Office—the DMO—which is an executive agency of HM Treasury.
The commissioners’ functions and powers are delegated to the secretary of the PWLB, who is a civil servant at the DMO. The highly regarded prudential regime means there is no scope nowadays for the commissioners to exercise influence or discretion over lending to local authorities. The Government are therefore considering whether to abolish the Public Works Loan Board while ensuring that permitted borrowers, mainly local authorities, will continue to be able to access central government loans in the same way as now.
The purpose of including the PWLB in Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011, which is what these amendments achieve, is to confer on the Government the power to make an order under the Public Bodies Act that would abolish the PWLB and transfer its functions to an eligible person, as defined in the Public Bodies Act. Let me assure noble Lords that the abolition of the PWLB, and the succession arrangements, will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny under the Public Bodies Act process. This proposal is purely about governance reform. The PWLB abolition will not impact on the prudential regime or local authorities’ existing loans with the PWLB, and local authorities will be able to undertake new borrowing from the successor body, as now, at rates that offer good value for money. Interest rates will continue to be a policy matter for HM Treasury.
Following the commencement of the provisions in this clause, the Government plan to publish a consultation document providing details of their proposals for abolition and succession, as required under the Public Bodies Act. After taking into account responses from the consultation, both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft legislation, which will of course be accompanied by the explanatory document, as required by Section 11 of the PBA. Abolition of the PWLB would remove bureaucracy and align the accountability for lending to local authorities with DMO’s existing responsibilities for day-to-day operational management. This is in line with the Government’s wider efficiency and modernisation agenda.
I am conscious that these amendments are so uncontroversial that this may be the last moment that I am on my feet in a discussion on the Infrastructure Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friends Lady Verma and Lord Ahmad, who have been stalwart in leading significant parts of the Bill. I thank your Lordships all across the House. The Bill has involved many different departments; individuals with different specialisation and Peers who have followed different issues have had to co-ordinate and manage across the complexities. They have done so brilliantly. I think we have collectively improved the Bill. It has also involved working closely with the other place. This is also an opportunity for me to say particular thanks to the Bill team, which has had to deal with some of the most extraordinary complexity in managing this whole process. Frankly, I think it has done it brilliantly.
I will of course wish to respond if issues are raised by any other Members of the House, but I did not want to lose the opportunity to say thank you, since I am aware that the amendments I am moving are so technical and uncontroversial that this may be my last time to speak. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am bound to say that when I saw references to the Public Works Loan Board being abolished a sense of nostalgia swept over me. It took me back to my first finance committee meeting of Luton Borough Council in 1976—noble Lords will remember that in those days if you turned up with a briefcase you were put on the finance committee straight away—and to the regular reports of the borough treasurer thereafter. Little did one realise that we were then in the comparative twilight of the commissioners’ existence.
The most recent Annual Report and Accounts, in describing the functions of the commissioners, says that they derive from legislation of 1875 and 1968, which has been referred to. However, the report also says that the PWLB’s existence can be traced back to 1793. It became established on a permanent basis in 1817. It is asserted that changes over time have made the PWLB less relevant, to the point where it is suggested that its purpose is redundant. As we have heard, its functions and powers have been delegated to the Debt Management Office. A significant development was the prudential borrowing regime introduced under the previous Labour Government, which obviated the need for local authorities to go through a credit approval process. In fact, the prudential borrowing regime has proved to be a major success and has demonstrated that local authorities act responsibly and prudently when it comes to exercising borrowing powers. The proposition is to include the PWLB in Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011 so that the Government can use powers under that Act to abolish it and transfer its functions to an eligible person. It seems as though any necessary consultations are to take place under the PBA processes—presumably about “how” to abolish it, not “if”.
My colleagues in another place have already challenged the Government on why the consultation promised last July has not taken place. They have also reasonably sought to clarify what residual functions the PWLB undertakes. The foreword to the 2013-14 Annual Report and Accounts described the functions of the commissioners as being,
“to consider loan applications from local authorities and other prescribed bodies and, where loans are made, to collect the repayments”.
As a practical matter, as we know, these responsibilities have been delegated to the secretary—effectively the accounting officer. The PWLB borrows from the National Loans Fund to fund its loans. All interest and loan repayments are paid over to the National Loans Fund. Commissioners are prepared to lend to an authority up to the available capacity in its prudential borrowing limit.
It seems to us that although the functions have been delegated to others the PWLB’s nominal powers are surely not insignificant. At 31 March 2014 it held loans of approximately £63.7 billion, with corresponding liabilities of the same amount. Its powers to facilitate borrowing and manage loans must be significant, even though delegated. As my honourable friend Roberta Blackman-Woods MP stated in another place, we all,
“want assurance that there is good oversight”—
and transparency—
“of local government borrowing”.—[Official Report, Commons, Infrastructure Bill Committee, 13/1/15 col. 333.]
Perhaps the Minister would take the opportunity to say how she considers that this will be provided under any new arrangements. Having said all that, we certainly will not oppose these amendments.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the consultation that will come under the Public Bodies Act is obviously an important step in the process to allow for full discussion of the kinds of issues that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has discussed today. At the moment the commissioners simply meet on an annual basis. They note the loans issued and review the annual report prepared by the officials. I think this House would agree that sometimes it is important to recognise reality and make sure that the formal arrangements match the actuality. We hope that this is a step in that direction.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) The provisions in section 1(1A)(d) of the Building Act 1984 regarding action to be taken as a result of the building’s contribution to or effect on emissions of carbon dioxide shall apply to—
(a) all buildings and developments consisting of ten or more properties, or(b) from 2018 all buildings or developments of any size.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to limit the small sites exemption to two years from 2016 and to abolish it thereafter and to require the threshold in the interim to be sites with fewer than 10 properties. The Government have sprung their small sites exemption on us with little or no consultation, although they are now consulting on the matter. In the mean time, it remains unclear what is meant by small sites or by the exemption. We were hoping to have some clarity on these issues in time for today, but, alas, no. I thank the Minister for his letter of 3 November, where he said that the Government had endeavoured to publish the consultation document and the government responses on the zero-carbon consultation for the House of Lords Report stage, but were, however, still working on the document. It would be helpful if the Minister could say more about when we will be able to see that.
As we debated in Committee, the rationale for any exemption from the zero-carbon homes standards is a bit thin. The Government have already lowered these standards. If there is any justification for a time-limited exemption for some sites, it is that, having announced it, it might be argued that some time is needed to move back to the single standard. However, the longer the uncertainty about the detail of the exemption continues, the less valid that point is. The Government have argued that the exemption will be of help to small builders who have more difficulty in responding to new regulations. While I am sure that we all wish to encourage small builders, this is not the best way to do that.
We have recently had the benefit of the report from Michael Lyons, covering a whole raft of interesting stuff on housing. Within the package of support for SMEs that he recommends, for example, are these points:
“Legislative change to permit ‘redline’ outline planning applications on smaller sites of fewer than 10 homes. Local authorities should identify small sites in public ownership in local plans, and work with … public landowners to make them available for purchase and development by SMEs. Local authorities and their New Homes Corporations, working with lead developers should offer more packaged … opportunities for serviced sites to help SMEs access the market, including in Housing Growth Areas”.
Therefore, there are other ways in which to help small builders. In any event, it was pointed out in contributions to our debate that it is assumed that only small builders build on smaller sites and that larger builders would not seek to parcel sites to take advantage of the small sites exemption. It is also the case that a significant number of homes are provided on smaller sites.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the right reverend Prelate for their amendments, which have allowed us to discuss this important issue again.
I am conscious that Amendment 101A has already been discussed in Committee. I am of course happy to revisit the subject because of its importance, and in doing so I ask noble Lords to excuse me if I cover points we have covered before. From our previous discussions, and as my noble friend Lord Teverson has alluded to, I know that a clear consensus was emerging that in designing the zero-carbon homes policy we must ensure that smaller builders are protected from increases in costs that may make it more difficult for them to compete. In seeking to limit the scope of the application of off-site carbon abatement measures to developments of 10 or more dwellings, the amendment recognises that important principle. On that basis it is well intentioned and in line with the Government’s thinking on the issue.
With regard to the Government’s thinking, I am conscious that noble Lords would have expected a consultation paper to have been issued by now and in advance of this debate. Indeed, in various meetings that I have held in advance of this stage of the Bill, this was something we discussed. At this point I can only apologise for the delay which has occurred. I assure noble Lords in that apology that the Government are working very hard on the consultation paper, and we are very aware of the interest on this issue and the need to set out our thinking as soon as possible.
We recognise that achieving the zero-carbon standard could be particularly challenging for small builders. Smaller developers face extra costs in terms of land acquisition and purchasing. They also rely on an ability to identify and redevelop small sites or to assemble small parcels of land into larger opportunities. Research recently published by the National House Building Council on improving prospects for small housebuilders suggests that the availability of suitable small sites—which they indeed prefer—is declining. It also indicates that any extra regulatory costs can impact on the viability of development. We are concerned that if the costs of zero carbon lead to fewer small sites being brought forward, this will further hinder the prospects for small housebuilding firms.
Therefore, while welcoming the intention behind the amendment, it cannot be supported, principally because it would not provide the flexibility that we need on this issue. Putting a rigid exemption in primary legislation would not be the right way forward. There must be flexibility to respond to changing market circumstances and to listen to those people with the main interests in this area, the homebuilders and environmental groups. Our intention therefore is first to seek the views of those interested parties on how the exemption should work. Only after that consultation would we legislate, setting out the scope of the exemption through the building regulations and providing supporting guidance in that respect. Primary legislation is not required to exempt small sites. Section 3 of the Building Act allows for building regulations to make different provisions or to exempt prescribed classes of buildings from the requirements of building regulations. However, I recognise that the key point of the debate is the threshold to be applied.
The amendment proposes an exemption based on sites of fewer than 10 units. I mentioned during Committee that this was one of the options being considered. I say “options”, because we must leave room for respondents to offer up different options or evidence for consideration. We will also consult on the timeframe that should apply to any exemption. It is this area in particular where flexibility is a paramount consideration. What may be right at the time of designing the exemption may not be right further down the line, and the Government must have the ability to review the operation of the exemption appropriately. I hope that it is helpful to clarify these important points and that doing so provides some further reassurance in advance of the consultation being published. We do, of course, welcome noble Lords’ considered opinions and views as part of that consultation exercise, and I assure your Lordships’ House that they will receive a copy at the earliest opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about a response on allowable solutions from the Government that was published in July and provided to noble Lords ahead of Committee. I am not sure whether there has been a response, or if it did not reach the noble Lord. I specifically asked for it, and was assured that a hard copy was also sent to the noble Lord in this respect. If, again, he requires a further copy of that, I shall be happy to forward it on.
I now turn to Amendment 108A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate. As I said during the discussion on a similar amendment in Committee, this amendment will result in significant problems by prescribing energy performance levels in the Bill. We all share the desire to see energy-efficient homes built that help to reduce carbon emissions and fuel bills. We should not forget that this Government have made significant progress towards delivering on the commitment made by this and the previous Government to ensure that zero-carbon homes are built from 2016 onwards. Since we confirmed our commitment to the 2016 target for new homes to be zero carbon, we have further strengthened the requirements of the 2006 building regulations in 2010, and again in 2014, achieving a 30% total reduction. In fact, the most recent changes we made to the building regulations in 2014 will help to save homeowners an average of £200 on their fuel bills, compared to new homes built before we came to office.
Of course, we are not stopping here. As I have said, we have confirmed that from 2016 all new homes will have to meet even higher standards for on-site measures to be set out in building regulations. These will be set at a level equivalent to that required for a home built to the code for sustainable homes level 4 standard and will save homeowners on average £700 more annually when compared to a typical existing home. The right reverend Prelate talked of building to code 4. This can be done, which is why we think it is a reasonable standard to set. However, as shown by the Zero Carbon Hub’s as-built performance gap programme of work, there are challenges. We should set a realistic and achievable target, not one which pushes the industry to a point where it cannot deliver in practice.
To change the energy requirements for new homes, it is always necessary to consult carefully those affected. We should not forget that we are talking about a technical area that impacts across the whole construction sector. Additionally, the industry reports on building types that this amendment ignores and does not address, such as high-rise flats, because more work is needed. The categories listed in the amendment contain different building types and a rigid standard to cover them all. This may not work in practice. It may, but it is important to take the time to work through it in consultation with the industry. It would not be workable to deliver the proposed standard within six months. Even if it were, it may not be prudent to have such a rigid timeframe for delivery in primary legislation.
The independent Zero Carbon Hub recognises that further technical modelling is required. If, in the light of consultation, even slight adjustments were needed we would not be able to make them without new primary legislation. I assure noble Lords that the Government will strengthen standards and deliver zero-carbon homes from 2016. That is and remains a clear commitment on which we will be held accountable if we do not deliver. Between now and 2016 we will consult widely as to how the new proposed carbon compliance standard can be met. We will share that consultation with noble Lords.
My noble friend Lord Teverson and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked about exemptions. The number of smaller housing developers competing in the market is significantly lower than it was prior to 2008. Smaller developers often face greater set-up and purchasing costs, compared to larger developers. New regulatory requirements often hit smaller developers earlier, as there are shorter lead times to starting development. With all this in mind, it is vital that the Government give the sector the support it needs, and exemption from the full cost of the carbon requirements is one way of doing so.
Let me also reassure the right reverend Prelate that we work closely with partners such as AIMC4 that have shown that it is possible to build homes to meet a higher level of energy efficiency. The work of that group has helped the Government in deciding to set the on-site requirement at around code level 4, as this should be affordable and achievable for the majority of developers. It is important to recognise that this work was limited in scope and did not extend across the full range of buildings such as flats.
The point was made that the setting of on-site standards could result in a watering down. We worked closely with the Zero Carbon Hub, whose work was hugely influential in helping the Government decide what further action to take from 2016. The hub did not recommend an on-site level for high-rise apartment blocks, recognising that further specialist work was required.
My noble friend Lady Maddock asked some specific questions about rowing forward and rowing back, as she described it, and said that some explanation was needed. I am sure she will appreciate that there are discussions taking place. I hope that my comments have somewhat reassured her that the commitment of the Government to achieve our objective when it comes to zero-carbon homes and to the policy that we have agreed from 2016 remains a priority.
I hope that my responses have been sufficient to reassure noble Lords of the Government’s position on both these amendments and that the approach I have outlined here, as well as in Committee, has demonstrated why these amendments may prove problematic in terms both of increased demands on the home building industry and of the mechanics of delivery. On the basis of these reassurances and accepting that we are still working towards the issuing of the consultation on zero-carbon homes, I hope there is sufficient to encourage the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the right reverend Prelate not to press their amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. I think we recognise that putting material in the Bill reduces flexibility. The point is well made that these things will need to be dealt with in secondary legislation. The purpose of an amendment such as this is to get some debate and discussion going, as the Minister is well aware. He suggested that Amendment 101A, with its recognition of sites of fewer than 10 properties, was an acceptance of the policy. That was certainly not its intent. The key part of that amendment was that there should not be any exemption after 2018.
The consultation that I was probing was the one that was dealt with in the Minister’s letter of 3 November, which was the consultation on the exemption for small sites. If I made reference to allowable solutions it was not my intention. That was the consultation—knowing when it will happen and, more importantly, what is in it.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, this continues a similar theme. I tabled an amendment in Committee to try to get more rigour into ensuring that the building regulations that we have are met and complied with. There is very little point in our legislating if those standards are not met in practice. I quoted the Government’s own adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, which stated that there seemed to be a big gap between what should be happening with the thermal efficiency of homes and what was actually happening. I was not completely reassured by that, but I accept that that is mainly a role of local government.
I am trying move on to address the fact that it often takes—and certainly has over recent years—a long time for a planning permission to become a built-out and lived-in development. We have the situation—I look on it as an anomaly or rather a loophole—whereby the building regulations to which builders must build relate to the date of the planning permission rather than when the development is constructed and completed. If that is only within a couple of years, it makes no difference whatever. We have, however, a number of developments—at certain times more than others—when that stretches over a considerable period. I realise that planning permissions themselves have a shelf life. After three years, if they have not been used, they go into abeyance. However, I remind noble Lords that under that system, as long as you do a certain amount of work—you do not have to complete it—that planning permission remains live. That is something that is done very regularly to make sure that planning permissions are not lost.
I was very impressed by the Minister’s figure of £200 that would potentially be saved per annum by the moving up of building regulations by the Government. Of course, that illustrates very well the extra cost to residents of houses that do not meet those standards—either because they have been exempted under the small development regime that we talked about in the previous amendment or because houses are being built under building regulations that are several years old.
It seems to me that this is something that needs to be fixed—for consumers and certainly for the government strategy on fuel poverty and zero-carbon homes. So I am putting forward an extremely modest proposal that is a longstop: if developments have not been completed within six years of gaining planning permission, at that point they must comply with the building regulations of that time rather than those when the planning permission took place. I have tried to make this amendment as clear as possible. I hope it says that. I very much hope that it is in line with government policy and that this is something of a loophole that we would like to close—particularly when we have periods when building and construction developments take a particularly long time.
Indeed, I would ask whether there is a temptation sometimes to get planning permissions early. Where we have land banks, it perhaps means that construction is delayed but it almost gives a benefit to developers to hang on to undeveloped land. I would like to see this very sensible measure used as an incentive for building, particularly of dwellings when we have such a national housing shortage, to be started and completed within a reasonable period. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising a very important and interesting point about developments that are not completed within six years of the granting of planning permission. As we have heard, it requires the development to be carried out in accordance with current building regulations relating to conservation of fuel and power. This is an attempt to address the very serious point that we have delays in the completion of developments, particularly housing. Given the housing crisis we face in this country, the objective should be to encourage sites with planning permission to be built out as soon as possible.
This is one of the issues that the Lyons report addressed for us. Although this is not the occasion for an extensive discourse on that report, one of the interesting points it makes is that some 80,000 unbuilt homes have planning permission from 2010 or earlier. Some of these will be built to 2006 standards, and so be eight or more years out of date. One of the issues that this amendment raises is how practical it is retrospectively to amend the applicable building regulations. There will obviously be issues around homes that are partially constructed at the cut-off point. Getting homes built earlier is good for obvious reasons, although, of course, it does not necessarily do anything to raise the standards of applicable building regulations.
I might resort to going back to the Lyons report. Obviously, not all these recommendations are yet, or will become, policy, but under the heading “Use it or lose it”, it suggests that,
“the life of a planning permission should be reduced to two years with higher fees applying for renewal of expired permissions”.
That would present an alternative mechanism whereby people have to go back and face updated building regulations. Certainly, more substantive work should be required to count as the commencement of development. That is a problem the noble Lord identified. The report also suggests that,
“councils should have powers to levy a charge equivalent to council tax if land allocated in a plan with or without permission is not brought forward within five years”.
Compulsory purchase powers could be strengthened and streamlined to make it easier for public bodies to acquire land where it is not brought forward and where it is a priority for development, so there are alternative ways to encourage developments to take place and perhaps to realign the nature of those developments with updated building regulations. The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point which I am sure will get a full response from the Minister. One hopes that something could actually flow from this.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for tabling this amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his comments.
I should say at the outset that I share the sentiments expressed on the objective of ensuring that more homes are built, and built according to better standards and in line with standards. My noble friend’s proposed amendment sets a six-year time limit on a development being built to the energy performance requirements in building regulations in force at the time that planning permission was granted for the development.
I should start by pointing out that, as noble Lords may be aware, it is not the grant of planning permission that is the trigger for the application of building regulations’ requirements but the submission of a plans application or a building notice, or an initial notice to the building control body. During my time in local government, I remember many applications that were challenging in that regard. Therefore, we think that the amendment as drafted may lead to confusion about what happens under planning as opposed to what happens under building regulations.
However, setting to one side the issues that may arise from the drafting of the amendment, there are important practical considerations about how new building regulation requirements apply to developments already under way at the time that the new regulations are introduced. It can take a long time to plan, design, finance and build a development, as noble Lords know. It is therefore correct that the building regulation provisions in force when the building regulations application is made remain those with which the development must comply. To provide otherwise would lead to unreasonable disruption, perhaps delay, and increasing financial burdens as there would be uncertainty about construction standards and a risk of disruption to the supply chain part way through the development.
For example, large developments such as the famous “cheese grater” building in Leadenhall Street, London, will take many years to build and complete—often longer than six years. If accepted, this amendment would mean that the technical requirements of those developments would need to be changed part way through construction. Forcing a development to change from one set of building regulation requirements to another half way through a project would cause real problems for builders, as I am sure my noble friend would recognise.
However, in saying that, I put on record that I totally understand and appreciate my noble friend’s concern that developers may play the system by submitting a building regulations application and then doing nothing or delaying the development and not having to meet any more up-to-date requirements that may have been introduced in the mean time. From my experience, I have seen that happen, too. The Government have recognised this issue and so building regulations generally require that whenever any changes are made to building regulations, building work in respect of any applications made before the coming into force of the new requirements must commence at the latest within 12 months—otherwise, the new requirements will apply.
This requirement was introduced in 2006. Before then, as noble Lords will know, the time limit was three years. This time limit is set in the building regulations. This gives the opportunity to adjust the time limit in light of the circumstances when new regulations are introduced. If we were to rely on changes to primary legislation, we would then lose the flexibility to respond. If we stated the time limit at an inappropriate point, we could cause real problems for housebuilding, as I have already outlined. It will be for the Government dealing with building regulations changes for 2016 to consider what time limit may be appropriate. I am sure that they will read this debate very carefully to see the issues raised and the views expressed. I believe that my noble friend recognises that the amendment as it stands focuses only on one specific area of building regulations, the energy performance requirements. The time limit which I have just described applies in respect of any change to the standards in the building regulations. Therefore I am sure that my noble friend recognises that it may lead to confusion for developers if different time limits apply to energy performance requirements than to other requirements of building regulations.
The amendment from my noble friend, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, raises an important issue. However, as drafted, it would not work for the practical reasons that I have outlined. I hope that I have set out in some detail the time limit which already operates in building regulations to tackle the risks of developers who seek to just get regulations in place for the sake of it. There will be an opportunity in the consultation on the 2016 regulations for energy performance requirements to be looked at. I hope that, in the light of the assurances and clarifications that I have provided, my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. As she said, good design is not just desirable but necessary.
The noble Baroness talked about beauty and despoliation of the environment. They are aesthetic concerns which are aspects of wider cultural concerns, themselves a significant and necessary component of good design. I would therefore go further in paragraph 5.22 of the draft licence which the noble Baroness quoted, because I think that the absence of the word “cultural” is an omission. The relevant wording might then state that “the development of the network takes account of geographical, environmental, cultural and socio-economic context”. However, I acknowledge the work that the noble Baroness and others have put in to get as far as they have with the wording as it stands.
This is not about function, operation and maintenance versus culture or design. The precise function or functions of our highways, road networks and the built environment are themselves cultural issues. For instance, if we take into consideration initiatives very different from the norm in this country such as shared space schemes, which are intended to encourage more co-operative rather than competitive spaces, it becomes more objectively clear how form and function reflect each other in a very particular cultural sense. Good design needs to be thought of as central to planning and not as an add-on, not least because there needs to be a wider discussion about what good design is and means in relation to the precise nature of the changes which we have made and continue to make to our environment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to support my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment and to support those other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I am a great admirer of the way in which my noble friend Lady Whitaker has persistently championed the cause of good design and always the enlightened approach to planning.
As I understand it, the change in wording that is proposed is quite modest, but its impact could be quite profound. The 2008 Act, rather than stating that,
“the Secretary of State must … have regard to the desirability of … achieving good design”,
would state that “the Secretary of State must have regard to achieving good design”. The former, as my noble friend said, suggests that good design is somehow optional. The amendment would make sure that it was not. I hope that the Government are able to accept this small but important amendment.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. When I arrived in the East End of London 30 years ago this year, I was very conscious of the poor quality of design of large infrastructure. As you spent time in one of the most challenging housing estates, you saw the effect of some of that on ordinary people’s lives. At the Bromley by Bow Centre, we began to challenge that logic of poor-quality design. When we built the first integrated health centre in Britain, we did so from hand-made bricks—like those used at that time at Glyndebourne opera house. There followed a beautiful cloister facing a park and bringing together health, education and enterprise in what is now a rather beautiful environment, in the middle of a housing estate, that has affected many things around it.
I have noticed over the years how people are the environments that we live, work and play in. If you create certain sorts of environment, you get certain sorts of human behaviour. In our park on the housing estate, we do not have any cameras; local people have taken a lot of ownership of it. We have probably one of the few wooden playgrounds that are not burnt every night. If you put numbers around all that, you see that the value of it to people and the Exchequer is considerable. We are following similar principles in the Olympic Park—where I am a director and sit on the planning committee—and trying to ensure that we do not repeat the tacky stuff that has gone on before but build a very beautiful environment that begins to have a major catalytic effect on the quality of design that is starting to happen in the lower Lea Valley. It is interesting to watch how local people and others, and children running through the beautiful fountains, respond to all that. If one looks at the quality of what is being built and the lack of graffiti and other things, one gets a sense of how these things affect human life and their financial implications.
Yes, I suspect that it is difficult to measure in numbers terms; it is difficult to know which box you tick; but my 30 years of experience suggests that quality of design has a massive impact. I suggest that we ignore it at our peril.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am grateful and my pride is restored. When I received the open-door response from my noble friend Lady Kramer on that occasion, I think I predicted that the two-word amendment which I moved in Committee would come back at this stage of the Bill as a two-page amendment. I did not anticipate that it would run to eight or nine amendments over five pages, but I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for their work to try to correct what we all recognise was an anomaly.
The Greater London Authority is happy with the amendments to Clause 21 and with Clause 21 when amended, but there are still concerns about Clause 22. The Government’s proposals are welcome, but they do not go quite as far as they need to in order to correct what the Government intend. That is because the protection afforded by the new clause does not completely cover historic disposals. We are trying to correct an omission from the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. It is the view of the GLA that to be legally robust and clear to prevent unnecessary blocking of planned strategically important developments, the legal operation of the changes made by Clause 22 needs to be retrospective and to cover historic disposals. My Amendment 93A to Clause 22(11) would ensure that the changes in the clause cover relevant developments in London from the time that Section 11 of and Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 came into force, which was 1 December 2008. That would mean that all relevant land left unprotected by the defective provisions of that Schedule 3 would be covered by the corrections made by this amended Clause 22. It would also cover the appropriate corresponding provision that applied to the London Development Agency prior to its abolition.
That is entirely consistent with the Government’s intentions. I hope that the Minister will be in a position today to accept Amendment 93A. If he is not in a position to do so today, I hope that he will give a commitment to look at this point, which the Greater London Authority rightly feels to be important, and to correct it at a later stage, preferably at Third Reading in this House so that I can tie up the loose ends, but if that is too quick, then at a further stage of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we are grateful for the explanation provided by the Minister today and in the letter of 30 October. It follows a commitment made by the Minister when we discussed an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which called for the GLA to perform the role of disposal agency in London. This parallels the role designated for the HCA outside London, whereby land from arm’s-length bodies can be transferred directly rather than via the parent department. We support these amendments.
We also support the amendment just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the cut-off point and the date from which these provisions apply. That anomaly was pointed out in Committee. I hope that the Minister is able to give a positive response.
In Committee, we also probed the prospect of one or more local authorities adopting a similar role, particularly given the prospect of releasing substantial sums of publicly owned land to support housing development. This appeared to find some approval from the Minister, who undertook to explore further. Given that we do not have an amendment from the Government on this point, is this issue still under active consideration?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his amendment and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. After the various bilaterals that we have had in advance of Report, I also put on record my thanks for their attendance and for the discussions that we have had across a variety of issues. We may not agree in some cases but it has always been done in a spirit of having constructive ways of moving forward on various elements of the Bill.
I turn to the two non-government amendments. Amendment 92A would make provision in Clause 21 to allow land to be transferred directly from the ALBs of central government to the HCA, reducing bureaucracy and accelerating development. Amendment 93A is in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope. I do not believe that it is necessary to amend Clause 22(11) to allow powers to override easements to transfer to sites that have already been disposed of. Our clause aims to accelerate development; the proposed amendment from my noble friend would not help to facilitate this any further. Developers have bought land and entered into agreements clearly aware of what powers were available to them. The conditions that the land was sold with and the price paid will have reflected this. We are satisfied that where the land has been leased but the GLA, HCA and MDCs retain the freehold, the existing powers to override easements already apply and will continue to do so. That is sufficient to support development on most of the sites disposed of. Changing the law now to apply to sites that have previously been sold would be an unusual approach and may have unintended consequences.
I accept that in a small number of cases which I am aware of the freehold may have been disposed of, meaning that the power does not apply. However, there are alternative mechanisms available to address this such as taking out insurance, negotiating with easement owners and making references to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber. Given the mechanism already available and the small number of sites that would be affected, we do not believe that this is sufficient to warrant a legislative amendment which may well cause unintended consequences elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about local authorities. In our meetings, we said that the situation with local authorities was somewhat different. Beyond the discussions that we have had, the Government are certainly not in a position to provide any further detail or to accept any amendments in that regard.
“(3) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament on the effects of the transferral of responsibility for local land charges to the Land Registry, and the report shall include—
(a) an implementation plan;(b) an assessment of the impact it will have on local authorities.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 95 would preclude Clause 23 coming into effect until a report had been prepared and submitted to both Houses of Parliament on the effects of the proposed transfer of responsibilities to the Land Registry. In doing so, I shall say more widely why we consider the proposals for the local land charges register to be misguided. We do not object to government Amendments 97, 98 and 99, which are yet to be moved, and we support Amendment 95B tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
When we debated the issues of local land charges in Committee, it was very much in the shadow of a parallel proposition concerning a new delivery company for the Land Registry which was widely believed to be a step along the way to the privatisation of the service. The proposals for local land charges were seen as part of a strategy to fatten up the Land Registry to make it a much more attractive commercial proposition. However, just before our Committee deliberations, the Government announced that the Land Registry model would not be changed “at this time”. In the words of the Minister, there would be no change,
“for the rest of this Parliament”.—[Official Report, 15/7/14; col. GC 242.]
We accept this assurance, but it does not go very far; it takes us until only next May.
While our analysis of why the Government are misguided in their proposals for local land charges stands separate from this thread, we would be foolish to disregard the revival of that privatisation risk, should the coalition get its chance. We note that the departure of the current Chief Land Registrar has been announced. What can the Minister tell us about successor arrangements: does a change of leadership signal a different approach? Will the Minister share with us the terms of the job advert and whether it will be part of the role of the appointee to lead a privatised service? Is the aspiration to appoint someone with a background in the Land Registry or, like the departing chief, with privatisation experience? When is the new appointment expected to be made?
That aside, what the Minister has proposed is that, as part of acquiring wider powers, the Land Registry should take over statutory responsibility for holding and maintaining a composite local land charges register. It would be the sole registering authority for local land charges in England and Wales and the sole provider of local land charge official search results. Unofficial searches would continue as now to be provided by personal search companies. The Government’s rationale for the change includes the supposed benefits of standardisation of fees and format of results, improving processing times and our international rating for registering properties and supporting the Government’s Digital by Default agenda.
The Government have consulted on these proposals and have drawn significant opposition. This has come from the Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, the Local Government Association, the District Councils’ Network and the Local Land Charges Institute, as well as from private search companies from the SME sector. An important consideration is that the Government are arguing the benefits of a centralised approach, but they are actually creating further fragmentation.
Local authorities currently have responsibility in respect of two local searches— the local land charges searches and what is known as CON29. The former is divided into 12 parts and includes registering charges or encumbrances to property arising from such matters as planning conditions, Section 106 agreements, tree preservation orders, listed buildings and the like. The information on these charges is included on the register as and when the documentation which creates the charge arises. Such charges might originate in a range of council departments and it is the job of local land charges staff to update the register as soon as notified. Staff also help resolve queries where, for example, property descriptions are imprecise.
CON29 searches have been in operation for about 50 years. They are a non-statutory list of questions agreed between Government, local authorities and the Law Society. They cover a wide range of matters which may affect a potential purchaser of property, such as any pending planning applications, whether the area is about to be declared a conservation area, or if the access road is adopted. These are prospective matters which might affect somebody’s enjoyment of a property. There is no register as such but responses are provided when requests are made. Information may be held in a number of different council departments or, in the case of two-tier authorities, in different authorities.
The task of the local land charges staff is typically to peruse local information sources, including council reports, to keep abreast of developments. Local knowledge is vital and the District Councils’ Network has expressed particular concern that insufficient weight has been given to this. At present, there are 20 million entries on the local land charges register, with 65,000 changes being made each month. We also know that, for some 92% of searches, the inquiry is in respect of local land charges and CON29 searches together. The proposition is for the local Land Registry to receive updates from some 350 local authorities for incorporation on to their sole register—covering only local land charges. CON29 searches would be left as now, with local authorities. It was the intention that the Land Registry would take over both elements but, as the Local Land Charges Institute pointed out, years of trying to work out how this could be accomplished have apparently proved fruitless—unless the Minister could tell us by when these proposals could proceed. It is expected that CON29 searches will be undertaken by the Land Registry. What work is currently being undertaken to this effect?
As far as local land charges are concerned, we have no knowledge as to how often the information received from local authorities will be incorporated on to the register, the process for doing so and the format in which the information is to be supplied. What consideration has been given to data cleansing? When will there be a delivery plan for what the Government propose? What are the expected transitional arrangements in respect of local land charges? In arguing for centralisation, the Government have made much of the varying state of digitalisation of the land charges provision of local authorities. A range of different systems is apparently used by local authorities. Have all these to be standardised—presumably to a new system—before there is any transfer of the local land charges register to the Land Registry? Who is to bear the cost of this? Will it be a new burden on local authorities? Will local authorities be recompensed for investment made to date? Should they put on hold any planned new investment to digitalise their system? How is the Land Registry to cope with all this when they are in the throes of instigating complex online applications and automated processes in respect of their existing business?
The Government have also made much of the variable response times and charging arrangements of local authorities. Responding to the Government’s consultation, the Law Society stated that solicitors were broadly satisfied with the process of obtaining local land charges and other search information. They suggested that there were other issues—for example, consistent processes for discharging charges—which might be more beneficial to conveyancing arrangements.
As for lawyers’ irritation with turnaround times, they point out that the research related to the entire conveyancing process, not just the local land charge information. They say that variation in turnaround times will obviously be affected by the number and the nature of queries in each case. Of course, there will be no overall impact on turnaround times in circumstances where the later piece of the jigsaw is the CON29 process. A recent survey indicated that turnaround times for 96% of local land charge-only searches is less than 10 days, with three-quarters being returned in five days. There may be those outside this range, but surely the focus should be to help the minority of councils improve rather than turn all existing arrangements upside down. As for the variation in the level of charging, it is difficult to believe that it is the most important issue in the conveyancing process, but in any event there was a standard charge until the mid-2000s and there is no inherent reason why that could not be reconsidered for the future.
Where does this leave local authorities? The LGA expressed its opposition to this because it will leave councils with the expense of adjusting systems, breaking existing contracts and paying redundancy costs. The LGA is concerned that the longer-term cost to councils of compiling, checking and verifying data has not been properly accounted for. Of course, some local land charge staff have other duties as well, such as electoral registration, and the knock-on costs of staffing issues need to be considered. As part of this, it is planned to uplift all the existing local authority land charges register to the Land Registry for free, at a time when the Land Registry is seeking wider powers to market services. Has any value been placed on the local authority databases?
Unless there are clear plans to encompass the CON29 process into the arrangement, and there seems to be no prospect of that, all that is on offer from this proposition is a worse service and disruption to the existing arrangements. While there is always room for improvement—and the service has improved, on the testimony of those who use it and know best—why on earth fix something that is not broken and for which there is no support?
Despite the engagement of some local authorities in pilots to see the how this might work—seemingly Merton has not volunteered for this—it is obvious that there is no clear implementation plan and no comprehension of what this will mean for local authorities. These proposed changes to a vital service—vital to the health of the property market—should not proceed unless and until these matters are sorted out. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I tabled amendments in this group on Monday. Had the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, put down his amendment a day earlier, I would simply have added my name to that because it covers the issues.
My interest in local land registers is very recent—a matter of days. This part of the Bill was drawn to my attention by my council officers and particularly by Richard Townson, the democratic and legal services manager, who gave me a quick tutorial. I am not terribly upset that I did not become an expert in the subject a lot earlier, but needs must. I have a number of questions that the Minister may not be able to answer today, but if he cannot, I would be grateful for a reply in writing. I am aware that I should have made this speech in Grand Committee, but as I said earlier today, I was not available for House of Lords duties at the time.
The national Land Registry deals with the register of title—ownership issues—and does not go beyond that. We are told that it is run extremely efficiently and that is certainly my experience of using it. There are then local land registers that tell you that charges on a particular parcel of land exist. Those charges may be a requirement to pay money to someone, but most of them nowadays are constraints on the use of the land due to planning decisions or highways decisions.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his contribution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, “Welcome to the world of local land charges”. He has mastered his brief on that subject, as he normally does, and asked an entirely pertinent series of questions. We have had answers to some, but not all, those questions. The noble Lord stressed local knowledge, which is absolutely key to this.
I do not think that the Minister dealt with the key point that what is proposed to happen will be a fragmentation of a service. We know that currently most people undertake searches of CON29 and local land charges together. It is proposed to peel part of this off to the Land Registry, while the rest stays with local authorities. That seems to me to be the makings of a worse service, not a better one. We await very important information, certainly around the value of the database that local authorities have, which is to be taken over. The noble Lord reiterated the point about privatisation but did not deal with the point about the remit of the successor to the current chief of the Land Registry, the process for which is now under way. Clearly, if it is intended that the service be privatised, the service will be looking for someone with different qualifications from someone who will just administer the register as it is.
There is a beguiling issue about it all being digitised and all on one platform. That looks aside from the complexities of how it will be done and whether it is possible to get there with 348 authorities undertaking their daily work with some 60,000 entries each day. That really has not been addressed. We know that the process is struggling and has effectively given up on trying to take in CON29 as part of it. There are many unanswered questions. I am sure that the Minister will, as usual, be very diligent and look at the record and follow up where we have not had answers tonight. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will recollect that I raised this point at Second Reading on 18 June at col. 856. I will not repeat what I said on that occasion, or indeed on the very important points that my noble friend Lord Tope has just made.
The Minister was as good as her word and replied to the points that she did not have time for when she responded at Second Reading. She wrote to me on 1 July about the points I had raised, including this one, which she headed “Mayoral Powers”:
“Government officials and the Greater London Authority are in ongoing dialogue to agree suitable ways to transfer public sector land in London. If amendment of legislation is required, we will explore this at an appropriate opportunity in the future”.
It is a long time since I have felt that I was pushing at a door that is not only half open but almost entirely open. I hope my noble friend will be able to give us a little more information this afternoon.
The need for housing, particularly affordable housing, in London is acute. There can be very few couples —potential homeowners—under the age of 35 or thereabouts who feel that without significant parental help, or whatever else might be available, they will ever be able to buy a house. Part of the reason for that is the shortage of building land within the Greater London area and in the area immediately surrounding it. The disposal of surplus public land has become a matter of huge urgency. I believe, as my noble friend has said—and he quoted the noble Lord, Lord Best—that the Greater London Authority has this whole issue very much in mind and on its whole agenda for the development of London. The case for it to be the body to initiate, promote and encourage this is very strong indeed and I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us an encouraging answer this afternoon. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Tope.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her extended role during the course of this Bill and indirectly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—for the GLA to perform the role of disposal agency in London—on the face of it makes very good sense. As the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jenkin, said, the HCA’s objects simply do not run in Greater London as a result of the Localism Act 2011, and without a change you would have to retain the arrangements where transfers are made indirectly.
I took the opportunity to raise the matter with the Bill team, who have sent me a helpful note, which, if I may, I will just read from:
“I have been advised that under the Localism Act 2011, the GLA has responsibility for the HCA functions in London and the HCA does not have a remit to operate. The HCA has powers to operate in London but to do so would require delegated authority from the mayor. Under existing legislation, central Governments can transfer their land directly to the GLA; arm’s length bodies can also presently do so but would have to transfer the land to the parent department first”.
That is the inefficiency we are trying to tackle with this provision. The note goes on:
“DCLG are working with the GLA to determine what offer the GLA would be able to make to departments regarding land transfer. This will include whether statutory transfer is the most appropriate mechanism or whether an alternative approach is preferable”.
Could the noble Baroness just unpick that expression a little? Whatever arrangements are to be entered into, it does not seem to me to preclude supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
We have had a helpful briefing from the Mayor of London, which raised a number of points. The point about the GLA having to hold its land in a taxable subsidiary company would appear to have been addressed by government amendments, but there was also a point about transfers of land from the GLA, a mayoral development corporation or the HCA hitherto not having been able to pass on the override of third-party easements. This means that such owner-developers could be pursued for remedies by the previous owners and beneficiaries of such rights. Given that Clause 22(10) is to operate only where land is disposed of after the provision comes into force, how does the Minister see this point being addressed?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to stand here in the place of my noble friend Lady Stowell. I join the congratulations to her on her new role and apologise for the disappointment of noble Lords who were looking forward to debating these issues with her today. I will have to do for today’s purposes.
The public sector land programme aims to speed up the disposal of land and put disused land back into use for much needed homes. The current public sector land programme has identified land with capacity to deliver 100,000 new homes by March 2015. At the end of March 2014, it had released land capable of delivering more than 76,000 homes. As we move forward with the programme, we are aiming to reduce the bureaucracy involved in transferring land to the HCA and to speed up delivery of much needed homes and economic development.
The GLA has a pivotal role in delivering housing and economic growth in the capital, as my noble friend Lord Tope illustrated, and we are working with it to consider how its expertise can best be utilised in the disposal of surplus government land. In some cases, this may mean transferring sites from central government bodies to the GLA. Although the original clause, which is the one currently in the Bill, did not mention the Greater London Authority, we agree that there may be some benefit to exploring whether it should be included in the clause. There is an existing transfer process, but this might smooth the process of transferring sites from arm’s-length bodies to the GLA. There would need to be an agreement between the Government and the GLA that this is the best delivery mechanism for individual sites and the one that provides best value to the taxpayer.
One alternative, for example, would be to purchase land directly from the Government or their ALBs. All this needs further discussion and exploration with the various parties, and we need to work through whether there are stamp duty implications or other factors. Some resolution will be required before we can come to a definite decision on that process. We have been working closely with the GLA on the land disposal programme, as we will continue to do, so that we can work out how surplus public land can be better used to support housing and economic growth, alongside finding efficiency savings. We recognise what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, makes clear that there are complexities in all this. We do not have set levels of affordable housing. That has to be for the local authority. It is best placed and will undoubtedly use its planning processes, which of course apply to any development, to make the relevant determinations. He is right that there are complexities that we have to iron out and work our way through. I just want to alert the Committee and to say that we are sympathetic to the underlying direction of this amendment, but there is work to be done to know whether this is the most effective way to achieve what I think everyone here is attempting to achieve.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister expand on what she said because I am not quite following? I can see that there may, in differing circumstances, be details to work out as to how particular parcels of land are put together and how they end up for the benefit of housing in London. But this amendment would simply include the possibility of the GLA being the beneficiary of a Secretary of State’s scheme. The Secretary of State does not have to enter into a scheme under these provisions in all circumstances. I am struggling to see why the amendment could not be accepted. It would not be mandatory. It would just be one route. If it is not picked up in this Bill, I wonder when it will be picked up by another local Bill coming down the path. I am struggling to see the logic in not making this adjustment.
Baroness Kramer
I say to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that I will go back to the department and ask whether we can share any of that without disrupting the process of negotiation. I am sure that we would be willing to share those thoughts. This goes beyond my direct area of expertise and I would not want to mislead the noble Lord by taking him in a wrong direction. We will try to provide that clarification. The one thing that everyone here would be concerned about is making sure that it does not disrupt a negotiation process that would come to the conclusion that we are all seeking; that is, the efficient transfer of land to make sure that housing is made available at the earliest possible date.
I will be happy to work with your Lordships. The department is working with the GLA to consider whether these amendments would be beneficial or whether a somewhat different form is needed to deliver that public sector land programme in London. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend Lord Tope will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment and it has been suggested to us by the Local Government Association. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to allow one or more schemes for the transfer of designated property rights and liabilities to local authorities, as well as to the HCA. The LGA is clear that local councils share the Government’s focus on using publicly owned land to support housing development, and it suggested that councils have a programme to release, between 2015 and 2018, assets amounting to some £13.3 billion.
Apparently a number of councils have undertaken the pooling of their land assets with central government, and such activities could be facilitated if such assets could be transferred to local authorities rather than via the HCA. The LGA says that it has recently been asked by the Cabinet Office to help to transfer to local councils some 3,000 separate land and property assets held by government departments and agencies. These range in size and value and could be packaged for transfer. Would not these situations lend themselves to the types of schemes envisaged by Clause 21? Otherwise it would presumably involve the HCA as an intermediary.
There is a question of whether all local authorities would automatically be able to override relevant rights and restrictions on users and to secure these for third-party purchases. Doubtless the Minister will be able to help us on that. We may need to do more work on this before Report, but this is surely worth developing as a concept and I am interested to hear the Government’s position. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful for that response; frankly, it is more generous than I had anticipated. I accept that it is not an acceptance of the amendment, but it is an acceptance that it will be taken away and looked at seriously. The amendment was not designed in any way to diminish the role of the HCA; we see the importance of it.
I was not quite sure—perhaps this is something that could be looked at when the amendment is being otherwise addressed—of the extent to which local authorities are always able to pass on the benefit of easements that they have. Obviously, that is quite important for the development of process.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who supported the probe: my noble friend Lord Smith and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jenkin. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, told us that he was the chair of a housing committee 50 years ago. I remember that when I was first on my council I could not get on to its housing committee as it was seen as being quite senior. Committees in those days were made up of executive members; I think I was on the council for 10 years before I was given a sniff of it. Having said that, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(a) have been classified as surplus;(b) do not comprise land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment; and(c) do not extinguish any public rights of way.( ) “Common”, “open space” and “fuel or field garden allotment” have the same meaning as in section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 86, 87 and 88, while my noble friend Lady Royall will address Amendment 89 in particular.
We are supportive of the thrust of the arrangements to ease complexity, bureaucracy and cost in marshalling surplus public sector assets, but we accept what the Government have asserted about land held by existing arm’s-length bodies not being capable of being transferred directly to the HCA and the fact that this could be addressed by one or more schemes to transfer property to the HCA from a specified public body. The need for this is obviously bolstered by the Government’s plans—as we have just discussed—for the HCA to be the centralised disposal agency for surplus public sector land.
In their Accelerating the Release of Public Sector Land report of October 2011, the Government estimated that 40% of land suitable for development sits with public sector—both central and local government—land banks. Our amendments are a way of seeking reassurance. Other than transfers being capable of being made directly to the HCA, it is understood that there will be no change to the type of assets otherwise to be involved and no change to the decision-making or approval process. In this regard, perhaps the Minister will just remind us what the process actually is—in particular, the process by which land is regarded as surplus.
Amendment 85B was proposed to us by the Open Spaces Society. The society is concerned that, whatever the warm words of the Government about the specific and limited application of Clauses 21 and 22, they are written in very broad terms. Under Clause 21, a “public body” means,
“a person … with functions of a public nature”.
It is true that they have to be specified in regulations but they are regulations that are currently just subject to the negative procedure. The assurance from the Minister thus far is that only surplus land can be subject to a scheme, but the term “surplus” does not appear in the clause.
Amendments 86, 87 and 88 do no more than put in the Bill what the Government have already said to be the case, and it is difficult to see why these amendments would not be accepted.
There are other matters requiring clarification. So far as the easements affecting land are concerned, perhaps the Minister will confirm that the power to override third-party rights exists with the HCA, local authorities, the GLA and the Mayoral Development Corporation. Is it correct that this power of override can be exercised after land has been sold but only by those bodies—that is, that a third-party private sector purchaser of land would not be able to initiate such overrides? Can the Minister also say a little about how the tax provisions are intended to work? Presumably they are to avoid spurious tax charges arising from the scheme transfers, given that the nature of the scheme is by way of an “internal” reorganisation of assets. However, will each of the specific public bodies be non-tax-paying entities, and what is the intent regarding assets acquired from the HCA? On what basis will someone acquire those assets?
There is a wider issue concerning where value will accrue under the transfers. Will it be in the Treasury? If the scheme means that transactions are bypassing the parent department, how is all this to work? I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 89. I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading but I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord McKenzie of Luton for raising the issue of the public forest estate at that stage. The response given by the Minister did not assuage my fears or those of people up and down our land who are concerned about the future of this most precious of our assets.
Subsequently, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, who of course is now Leader of the House, replied to a Written Question that I had tabled about the future of our public forest estate. Very strangely, I read the answer to the question as a government press release in response to concerns expressed about the Infrastructure Bill, and that was before I received an Answer from the noble Baroness. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why that was the case.
I do not wish to detain the House with too many details about the chequered history of this Government’s approach to public forests and woodlands. Following the shameful Public Bodies Act, which would have enabled their sell-off, the Government, to their great credit, established the Independent Panel on Forestry, which, under the chairmanship of Bishop James, did a splendid job. Once the report was published, the Government said that they agreed with the recommendations and would be bringing forward a Bill in due course. Very sensibly, they spoke of draft legislation that would enable pre-legislative scrutiny and have the input of the wonderful grass-roots organisations throughout the country which rightly campaign on these issues.
However, here we are, two years after the publication of the final report of the panel, and we have not seen any draft legislation. I hope that the Minister will not be reduced to saying that that was because of pressures on the parliamentary timetable because, frankly, neither I nor thousands more will believe her. While Defra’s responsibilities are great, it promises only one piece of legislation this Session, which is a draft yet to be published. It is therefore not a wonder that people are both anxious and lack trust.
The case for sustaining and expanding our public forests and woodland was superbly made by the independent panel and endorsed by the Government. The social, environmental and economic opportunities that they can deliver are myriad. In my community, the forest is so much an integral part of our life, our culture and our heritage that we are called Foresters. The catalyst for the amendment is the fact that, whatever the Government’s policy may be, the Bill is capable of having an impact on the public forest estate.
At Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that these provisions,
“will not be used by bodies such as the Forestry Commission or National Parks, contrary to some recent, wholly unfounded, speculation”.—[Official Report, 18/6/14; col. 840.]
Will the Minister explain in greater detail why it is that they will not be used by the Forestry Commission? What safeguards are in place to ensure that that does not happen?
My noble friend Lord McKenzie mentioned surplus. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness said:
“The measure that we discussed for the HCA is about transferring surplus land from government agencies. The public forest estate and our national parks are in use; they are therefore not surplus and none will therefore be transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency”.—[Official Report, 18/6/14; col. 899.]
Will the Minister help us by narrowing the definition of surplus? From the statement that I have read out, it is not at all clear what would need to happen for land to be considered surplus and then be subject to the provisions in Clause 21. It would also be useful if the Minister could say what would need to happen for land described as “in use” to cease to be thought of as in use.
My concerns extend beyond that. By virtue of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, the HCA, and any other person, has an existing right to undertake works on and to use land of the HCA, even if it involves interference with an easement, liberty, privilege, right or advantage annexed to land and adversely affecting other land. The Infrastructure Bill proposes to extend this power to,
“land which has been vested in or acquired by the HCA”.
The effect would seem to be that the power to override easements and so on is granted to successor owners of the HCA. It is my view and fear that freemining—ancient rights and privileges granted to Foresters by Edward I—could be caught by Clause 23 because it certainly falls within easement, liberty, privilege, right or advantage. Compensation would be payable in appropriate circumstances but this is little comfort to those who wish to protect our traditions and cultural heritage, who work the mines and want to maintain the right for future generations. I should be grateful for the noble Baroness’s view of the implications of this Bill for freemining. If the amendment were accepted and the public forests exempted from the provisions of the Bill, the threat would fall away.
We are told by the Government, in their response to Recommendation 27 of the Independent Panel on Forestry, that land transactions within the public forest estate are to be subject to the overriding principle that they would be in the further interests of the public forest estate. They said:
“We agree with the Panel that the new body should be able to buy and sell land where this serves the core purposes of the organisation and delivers public benefits. We also agree that major projects and land sales should be consulted upon, but do not want to fetter the commercial freedom of the new body by requiring it to consult on each and every proposal. One of the roles for Guardians might be to ensure that any significant projects and land transactions proposed by the management body are in line with the remit and interests of the Public Forest Estate”.
The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which the Bill proposes to amend, is based on fundamentally different concepts from this principle.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, first, I am sure that no discourtesy was intended to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, over the timing of the letter that was sent. I cannot quite explain the sequence but I know that, in trying to co-ordinate the numerous questions that came to us following Second Reading, we tried to make sure that we had covered everybody’s questions and answered them fully, which may have delayed putting our responses in the post by a day or so. Therefore, I apologise if she was concerned by that.
The public sector land programme is about bringing disused land currently owned by central government back into better economic use, not about selling or building on community assets enjoyed by local communities. It is a continuation of our current programme, where we are on track to dispose of disused land with capacity for 100,000 homes. This clause is not about new policy, but merely the introduction of efficiency into the mechanism.
Surplus land can and already does transfer to the Homes and Communities Agency, but the process is more bureaucratic than is necessary. This clause is simply about increasing the rate of delivery by accelerating internal government procedures. The proposed amendments would actually slow down the process by adding further bureaucracy. For that reason, we would resist this amendment because our goal is to increase efficiency in this process, not to slow it down further.
On the issue of surplus land, it is important that land can transfer to, for example, the HCA while it is still in operational use but a decision has been clearly made that it will no longer be needed beyond a certain point. The HCA would then be able to start remediation works and marketing in parallel with the wind-down of operational activity. This minimises bureaucracy and ensures that we are making best use of our land at all times. Questions have arisen about the word “surplus”. There is not a definition in that sense because property-owning departments and arm’s-length bodies are expected to review their landholdings regularly to identify potential for rationalising their estates. When a landholding is no longer required by government, it is not just surplus to our requirements and there is no hard-and-fast definition of surplus beyond this because it varies so greatly from department to department and use to use. It is for individual departments to decide why they no longer require a piece of land.
I assure your Lordships that it is not possible for the Homes and Communities Agency to transfer land from other public bodies without the consent and co-operation of the transferring department. The transfer is direct but all statutory transfer schemes to the HCA must be signed by a Minister of the Crown or a delegated representative. Therefore, only land that the transferring public body has identified as surplus to its requirements will be transferred. This is standard government business and the noble Baroness will have been very used to this process when her party was in government. There is nothing new or different about the way in which it is being handled.
As I said, the clause is about accelerating internal government processes to transfer surplus land so that it can be disposed of more quickly and effectively for appropriate development. It does not override existing planning policy or community rights. The Government fully appreciate the importance of amenity land to both nature and our communities. Common land is central to our national heritage and we value it for agriculture, recreation, nature conservation, landscape and its historical and archaeological significance.
Public rights of way in the country are the primary means by which people access the countryside and engage in outdoor recreation, which in turn promotes improved health and well-being, as well as sustainable transport. Our amendment will not affect public rights of way. Normal planning procedures will apply to protect open spaces and other amenity land. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that open space should not be built on unless it is surplus to requirements, can be replaced or the benefits outweigh the loss. Planning policies should also protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Where the Homes and Communities Agency owns such land, it seeks to transfer it to the local authority or other community group to continue to manage the land for the community. It is also worth noting that the Homes and Communities Agency often facilitates the creation of new open spaces, allotments and amenity land, which over time become an important asset to the community.
I will talk more directly about the public forest estate in response to the amendments that address this and which are intended to prevent the transfer of land from the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency. We made clear our policy on the public forests at Second Reading and again in the letter that we provided to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. The forest estate is not for sale and we will not transfer the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about future Governments. Future Governments have always been able to make their own decisions, and this Parliament could not prevent their doing so. We can give an absolute assurance about the position that this Government take. Were she in government, she would have to make that decision on a democratic basis for herself.
In my published response to the Parliamentary Question from the noble Baroness relating to Clause 21, I said:
“Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill is completely unconnected to the Government’s stated policy to establish a new public body to hold the Public Forest Estate”.—[Official Report, 30/6/14; col. WA 214.]
The Government have no intention of transferring land from the new body to the Homes and Communities Agency, as the public forest estate is currently in use and not declared surplus. As such, the powers will not be used in relation to this body and will therefore have no effect on it.
I also refer to our forestry and woodland policy statement, published in January 2013, which built on the recommendations made by the independent panel on forestry, chaired by the then Bishop of Liverpool. It confirmed that the PFE will continue to benefit from public ownership. Nothing has changed. We remain committed to this and are continuing to work closely with stakeholders.
I believe that we shall have a discussion on the group that begins with Amendment 91A which will address some of the issues of easements. Just for the purposes of the issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, third-party purchasers will be able to override easements in any land sold by the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs, the mayoral development corporations. That has always been clear from this legislation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I apologise for intervening on the Minister but I wonder if we can clear that up, as it is before us. Did she say that third-party purchasers can override those easements?
Baroness Kramer
I think that a better way to express it is that where they have been overridden by the HCA, the GLA and the MDC, they are sold, as it were, with the override in place. I believe that that is correct; I will write to the noble Lord if it is not, but that is my understanding of the situation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful; that is helpful. It is what I understood the position to be likely to be—that third party purchasers could not create those overrides.
Baroness Kramer
That was the issue at dispute. My understanding is that they cannot create. I am now looking for some clarification on this so that I can come back to the noble Lord with a more correct answer. I just have a note that says, “If Clause 22 goes ahead, they will”. I believe that we are going to address that under Amendment 91A, in which case I may be able to give the noble Lord a more substantive answer shortly. If not, I will ensure that he gets complete clarification on this issue.
On the tax issues that the noble Lord raised, tax provision to produce a tax-neutral result will be made in secondary legislation under new Section 53B. Again, we can provide more detail on that than I have at my fingertips at this moment.
To return to the heart of Amendments 85B, 86, 87, 88 and 89, we believe that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that land transfers only when agreed by the Secretary of State and when the transferring department has deemed the land to be surplus to its requirements. The clause sits within the wider planning framework, which offers sufficient safeguards to protect any open spaces or other amenity land. For that reason we will resist these amendments, and I hope that what I have said provides some assurance.
On the Edward I freemining rights, we will indeed follow up in writing. I confess that that is beyond my general knowledge of these issues, so this may be the most helpful way to provide that information to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed response. I accept that there are some points on which we shall have some follow-up, particularly on easements. On matters of tax, the particular point I sought to probe was: at the point when the land goes from the HCA—or the GLA, if that is what it is—to a private sector developer, what is the basis on which it acquires that land? Is the developer thereby getting a tax break? Is the value of its land uplifted or is it reduced somehow? I do not expect the Minister to deal with that in detail today but I would be grateful if there could be some follow-up on it. We accept the assurance that there will be procedures in place to make sure that the owning department will have to sign off on any transfer and that it would only be surplus, as the Minister described.
Baroness Kramer
Perhaps I might make a small correction for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, because I want to be absolutely clear on this point. It would be a Secretary of State, a Minister or somebody delegated. Because the Government act as a whole, I cannot guarantee to him that the owning department would necessarily provide that signature but I will look for clarification.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful and perhaps we could have some follow-up on that as well, if necessary. I also accept that the different approaches to when land is identified as surplus mean that it may be difficult to have an all-embracing definition in the Bill.
However, that leaves two issues around the forest estate, which my noble friend Lady Royall spoke about with a great passion, as indeed did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. Given the generality of the assurances that the Minister has given, is there not the possibility that we could at least have something specific in the Bill in relation to the public forest estate, as an example of where it simply will not be transferred? That would ease the genuine concerns of many who are not happy about the broadness of this clause as it is drafted. Could that, at least, not be included in the Bill? We accept that there are issues around surplus and the processes of transfer.
Baroness Kramer
I apologise for bobbing up constantly but the noble Lord will understand that I am trying to catch information as rapidly as I can to ensure that we do not leave him with an inaccurate picture. In terms of that sign-off to which I referred a few moments ago, if the land is surplus, it is the Minister for the DCLG who provides the signature in all cases. It is important that I share that, rather than leaving the noble Lord misinformed on this issue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
We need to think about that. Is it the Minister for the DCLG in all cases, wherever the land was originally owned or used and whichever department it was?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that. It is news to me but it is helpful to have it. I should like to press again on the issue of the public forest estate and why that cannot be specifically included as an exemption from the operation of these clauses. I am sure the Minister will recognise that that would ease the very real concerns that have been raised. She may say that those concerns are unnecessary, given the assurances that have been provided, but notwithstanding that, there would be clarity and certainty in the Bill. What is wrong with that?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I feel that at this point we have given real clarity on this issue. As I say, this mechanism simply makes more efficient a process that is currently in place. The assurances that stood yesterday and stand today are the assurances that will stand tomorrow, and it seems to us that those are clear and unequivocal. We therefore cannot see what is gained by putting this into the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have reached the stage where it is necessary to withdraw the amendment but I cannot believe that we will not return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(7A) An instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations under section 53A(2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7B) An instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations under section 53B may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment that would require the regulations specifying public bodies to be subject to the affirmative procedure. These provisions are focused on identifying which public bodies’ assets can be the subject of a scheme for transfer to the HCA. In other amendments, we have just discussed the sensitivity around these schemes, which should be clear. The affirmative procedure is still limited but it seems to us that it should apply, at the very least on the first use.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I gather from general conversation that there are many arm’s-length bodies—certainly several hundred of them. A process whereby adding them or subtracting them from a list would require affirmative actions in your Lordships’ House and the other place seems excessive, frankly, when the whole purpose of this is to speed up the process of land disposal and ensure that appropriate developments can happen quickly. Maximising the release of surplus public sector land is critical to support our ambition to reduce the deficit and, even more importantly, increase the number of homes being built.
We are already releasing surplus public sector land under the current public sector land programme, and have an ambition to dispose of land with the capacity to build 100,000 homes. The language in the Bill lets us do that better and faster, getting much needed land developed quickly. We already utilise the expertise of the HCA to remediate and market surplus land, and it will continue to play an important role in speeding up development. The purpose of the clause is to eliminate needless bureaucracy and get surplus developable land to the HCA quickly.
An amendment specifying that the regulations about bodies transferring land to the HCA would have to pass through the affirmative procedure would merely slow that whole process down again and defeat the whole point of what we are attempting to do. We are cutting out a middleman, and it is important to resist various attempts to slow this process back down again. Needing a debate in both Houses every time a new set of regulations was made or when names were added to a list would have the effect, frankly, of wasting parliamentary time. There is a process in place that allows for objections to be made if concerns are sparked by any particular change.
The proposed programme is not a one-time programme but a continuing one, and new sites can be identified by departments and arm’s-length bodies. The transfer could come from an arm’s-length body that currently either does not exist or is not on the list because it has not at present identified land to transfer. We really do not want to exclude land because those names are not on the list—we want to make sure that development can happen. This amendment is at odds with the aims of the Bill, and for that reason we ask that the amendment be withdrawn and that it be accepted that these regulations should remain subject to the negative procedure.
As I say, when there are genuine concerns about a body specified in the regulations, the negative resolution procedure allows a challenge to be made and a debate to take place, in either House. The regulations can be challenged and dealt with in that way. In our view, the negative procedure is proportionate and in line with our policy aim to accelerate the pace of land disposal and to remove bureaucracy. I therefore ask that this amendment be withdrawn.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think I am convinced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, maximising the release of surplus public sector land is critical to supporting the Government’s ambitions to reduce the deficit, increase the number of houses being built and help to drive economic growth.
We have introduced Clause 22 to speed up the process of land disposal and ensure that appropriate development can happen quickly. The ability to remediate and sell surplus public sector land is critical to the supply of much needed new homes. I think this is going to address the question raised a few moments ago: our clause will bring the powers of purchasers of land from the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs into line with those presently enjoyed by purchasers of land from local authorities and other public bodies involved in regeneration and development, such as urban development corporations, when overriding easements. This now picks up the issue that I stumbled upon a few minutes ago.
The ability to override easements is often necessary to the development of a site. It is in the wider public interest that we support development that brings much needed homes and jobs. We have tabled this amendment to ensure that the power can be used as intended by the Greater London Authority. The bulk of GLA land is held and managed by GLA Land and Property. We need to ensure that it is able to use the powers as intended, which is what the amendment will do. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think that I am happy with this. Do I understand that it relates just to dealing with the GLA problem and its need to operate through a taxable subsidiary?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, while my noble friend is contemplating the answer to that, she wrote to me about this in her letter of 1 July. She said:
“The intention is for the HCA to dispose of its freehold interest on the open market”.
I completely understand that. She said that,
“the HCA retains a strong policy interest in what happens on its land once it is sold to market”.
I think that that picks up the point I raised earlier about the need to ensure that the land is in fact used for purposes consistent with public policy. She continued:
“Where public land can be put to better use—say in supporting the delivery of much-needed new homes—it will transfer to the HCA. The HCA will then typically seek to set the parameters for future development on the land, by obtaining planning consent with the local authority prior to sale, and selling its land with certain conditions attached”—
that is the point that I think the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was asking about—
“to ensure that the building carried out on its land is done so in line with public policy (say by specifying the number of affordable homes to be built)”.
That all seems extremely sensible. This is not just bringing land in and then saying that anyone can do anything they like with it. If it is public land already, the question is to get it into use for public purposes as quickly and efficiently as possible, but for purposes consistent with public policy. That seems to be quite right. Can the Minister confirm that her amendment is indeed intended to achieve that?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I think that I have got it but I want to make absolutely sure. This amendment deals with the GLA situation but outside that, in the example being pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, if there is a disposal to a third party by the HCA with planning permission and all the constraints presumably being in the contract, can the third party purchaser in those circumstances take the benefit of overrides that have been provided by the HCA or a local authority but not create new overrides itself? That is the particular issue that I am trying to get clarity on.
Baroness Kramer
Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on that issue because I think that I am getting myself caught up in circles, which is not an appropriate way to give him the answers that he needs.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, there will be a subsequent debate in respect of Clause 24 so I will speak generally to both clauses and pick up any further points in the subsequent debate. Clause 23 transfers responsibility for local land charges to the Land Registry, while Clause 24 confers additional powers on the Land Registry. Neither of these propositions can be divorced from the parallel proposition for a new model of a Land Registry delivery company, which is widely believed to be a step along the way to privatisation of the service.
Just yesterday the Government pulled the plug—at least for the time being and, I am bound to say, not with good grace—by recognising that they would have to give further consideration to the complexity of their proposed new business strategy, including moving complex applications online and automating processes. There were high levels of disagreement anyway with the suggestion that an arm’s-length model would enable operations to be more efficient and effective or that such models would have the right checks and balances to protect the integrity of the registry. While reaffirming that they are moving ahead with the digital transformation, the Government have stated,
“at this time, no decision has been taken to change Land Registry’s model”.
While we should not be under the misapprehension that the threat has gone away, we should recognise that the news, unnecessarily delayed as it is, will come as some relief to the staff and to those who campaigned against the folly which privatisation would represent.
Mr John Manthorpe, a former Chief Land Registrar, has stated in a letter:
“The Land Registry is a successful and highly regarded department of government with a 150 year history. It makes no call on the exchequer and has a 97% customer satisfaction rating … It conducts its business impartially and free from any conflicts of interest. It grants and guarantees title on all transactions so providing the security of tenure and conveyancing machinery on which a stable society depends and without which the property, transfer and mortgage markets could not function”.
I could rest my case for this clause and Clause 24 not remaining part of the Bill at this point. If the Government have to hold back on their proposed plans for the Land Registry because they need to revisit the model to deliver their new business strategy, it is difficult to see how it could possibly take on responsibility for local land charges and more, largely unspecified, powers relating to that. There are some 20 million local land charges registered, with 65,000 updates every month.
There are further detailed arguments that deserve to be heard. For a start, the consultation on wider powers and local land charges was flawed. It was conducted by the Land Registry itself, which clearly had an interest in the outcome. There were concerns that it was overly focused on what would add value to the Land Registry, and that it was undertaken with at least half an eye to privatisation.
The Land Registry proposal is to take over the maintenance and searches of the register of local land charges. It argues that this is necessary because of a perceived lack of consistency and standardisation in the provision of local land charges. The World Bank ease of doing business survey marked the UK down on the ease of registering a business, including the speed of registering and transferring commercial property. This was also prayed in aid of the proposal.
However, the Law Society, in its submission to the consultation, expressed the view that in recent times local authorities and other providers have been producing search results in a timelier and more consistent manner and at a predictable cost. Indeed, the impact assessment noted that there had been annual productivity gains of 2%. The Law Society expressed the view that while there is merit in seeking to create a single local land charge and CON29 service, most practitioners would not regard it as a priority for the Land Registry to address. It says:
“Having more consistent processes for discharging charges … could markedly improve and de-risk the process”.
Dealing with searches is just part of the conveyancing process. The Law Society’s conclusion is that the research conducted by the Land Registry does not demonstrate that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
It is suggested that the speed of service conducted by local authorities is causing a problem in the conveyancing market. This is despite a recent survey indicating that the turnaround time for 96% of searches that involve only local land charges is less than 10 days, with three-quarters being returned within five days. Searches involving local land charges and CON29 have slightly less speedy performance but, as it is proposed that the latter stay with local authorities, it does not seem that overall search turnaround times will improve.
The District Councils’ Network has expressed concerns at the proposed separation of land charges to be undertaken by Land Registry from CON29 searches, which will remain the responsibility of local authorities. It considers that this fragmentation creates a risk of inconsistency, with the potential for errors and omissions. It says that insufficient weight has been given to the local knowledge that resides with local authorities, which are still generally the originators of the data. Local authorities will still incur costs in collating and supplying data, in maintaining a database and, presumably, for indemnity insurance—when there is no income stream from search fees. It also instances that many local authorities have made recent investments in digitalisation, for which no recovery is promised by the Land Registry.
As the Local Land Charges Institute points out, the original intention of the Land Registry was to take over and maintain the database for local land charges and CON29. However, having studied the proposition for over a year, it decided to abandon the idea. Therefore, as things stand, Clause 23 would mean a fragmented service, with no credible alternative being offered. The Council of Property Search Organisations—CoPSO—offers the view that the sector is currently operating well, with healthy competition. It says that the claimed postcode lottery is illusory and that there is no real problem to fix. Moreover, it suggests that the threat to local authority jobs could result in increased waiting times for searches, with consequent detriment to the housing market.
The Local Land Charges Institute argues: that the perceived problems with the land charge function has been overstated; that such problems as there are can be resolved more simply and with less cost; that the demand for the Land Registry takeover has been overstated; and that the Land Registry has failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the processes and risks involved in the local land charge function and is proposing a worse service. It says that the Land Registry has failed to demonstrate how it will actually provide the service and that the Land Registry has proposed a number of unsatisfactory business models over the past three years and now proposes to take over only half the service, providing less information to customers than local authorities currently do, leaving local authorities to undertake the more complex work and providing a fragmented service to customers.
The LGA expresses opposition, in particular making the point that the proposals will leave councils with the expense of adjusting systems, breaking existing contracts and paying redundancy costs. It says that over the longer term the costs to councils of compiling, checking and verifying data have not been properly accounted for in the analysis.
The opposition is glaringly obvious from the Government’s own consultation: 94% of respondents do not think that the Land Registry has considered all feasible options and 95% do not support the Land Registry taking over the local land charge function from local government. It is time to think again, as even the Government have recognised on their delivery company. It is time to remove the clause from the Bill.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I confess to relative ignorance on the subject of the Land Registry, so I have been trying to understand better. Naturally, I wish to support my Government, and particularly want to support my noble friend the Minister, who has to reply to this. I have a number of concerns, some of which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, set out very fully when making his points. Like him, I, too, have had representations from the Local Land Charges Institute and from the Law Society, which have made a number of points to which I am sure the Minister will reply.
Certain things increase my concern. First, of course, this takes functions away from local authorities and centralises them. There are two things that instinctively trigger me as a localist, and I find them difficult. I therefore need to understand better than I currently do, not just what the problem is that we are trying to fix, but what the scale of the problem is, as the Government see it, that makes it necessary to take these functions away from local authorities and centralise them. Throughout history, the experience of centralising does not necessarily automatically lead to greater efficiency, nor does it seem immediately to be in keeping with the Government’s commitment to localism.
On a similar and related point, I have seen several times the awful phrase “postcode lottery” used with reference to the current situation. I hate that phrase; if we put it rather differently, so-called postcode lotteries mean we recognise that different factors apply in different areas and that local people—local authorities, in this instance—are able to determine their priorities, their way of doing things and, for that matter, what charges they wish to set for local services. If that is called a postcode lottery then I am all in favour of it but I would prefer to call it real localism.
My next point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. He referred to the results of the consultation, which came out significantly against the Government’s proposals. That has been dismissed as self-interest. In a sense, that is true; it is pretty obvious that the Local Land Charges Institute has an interest. You can call it a self-interest if you like, but I have to say that the responses to most consultations come from organisations or people with what could be called a self-interest. It just so happens that that self-interest means that they usually know very much more about the subject than most of us do. The fact that they have a self-interest—or, as I would put it, a greater knowledge—certainly does not mean that they are by definition wrong or that their views should be dismissed. Certainly, the context should be recognised.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I shall reply first to the comment from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that the Minister did not meet stakeholders. That was during the consultation period. I think that Ministers often make the decision that they should not distort a consultation by meeting with some particular parties and not others. Meetings have subsequently been put into the diary with both Mr Lester and BIS. As I say, this was a matter of propriety during a period of consultation, as many noble Lords will recognise was necessary.
We have a problem with the local land charge system. At present, each of the 348 local authorities in England and Wales maintains its own local register, and they are kept in a variety of formats. Some are digital but do not use the same digital systems, while many are still paper-based. The fees for searching the register vary from £3 to £96. Since the rule applying here is that the local land charge service should be provided on a cost-recovery basis over a three-year period, it is quite hard to understand why there is that discrepancy and range of difference in pricing. Some of the services respond in a day or so; some take more than 20 days. That has led to the buyer of a property or someone remortgaging a property—who is, in all honesty, probably not that conscious of who their local authority happens to be—not being able to rely on an efficient service in every part of the country. It is, in a sense, a genuine postcode lottery if you are sitting in the position of the person trying to buy a property or seeking to remortgage one. I suggest that we have a serious problem there.
To give the Committee an example, Camden Council is taking 38 days to process searches. You can imagine what that is doing in a process where house prices move while people are trying to get mortgage approvals and are often in chains of buyers. It is clearly jeopardising people’s ability to buy a house. We have had other reports—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I apologise; did the Minister say that it was 38 days for Camden?
Baroness Kramer
My understanding is that it is the local land charge search, not the CON29 search, but we have had reports of problems of varying degrees in Scunthorpe, Erewash, Exeter and Sutton. It is not confined to one particular local authority. Users of this service have said in surveys that only 24% of local land charge search results are returned within a day and only 50% within two to five days. I thought that I had some of the numerous responses from people who use the service and thought it was an incredibly good idea to start trying to centralise it and provide some degree of consistency; if I find them later, I will quote them.
I should point out that the Land Registry’s performance for a similar range of preliminary searches and copy register and copy document services is that over 95% were returned within one day. The Land Registry, in its central form, is exceedingly efficient. It has a flat fee of £3 and most queries are dealt with instantly by online access. I now have the number that I was looking for. I am told that 63% of users were supportive of trying to rationalise and centralise this system. We are living in the 21st century and people expect to be able to access information in the most efficient way, and that supports the property market. If we want to increase the availability of housing, surely that has to be a service that we look at seriously, making sure that it is as efficient as it can be.
In this day and age, it is crucial that public services are available online. The DVLA now processes driving licence applications online, and I see no one calling for us to change that to a system in which in each local community there is a separate application for a driver’s licence through the local authority. It is time for the local land charges system to be modernised and made fit for purpose in a digital era. A single digital register held by a single provider will reduce overheads and eliminate regional variations in the speed, format and costs of the local land charges service. The solution will improve turnaround times to mere minutes and improve data accessibility for the property sector. By reducing overheads, in effect we will make sure that there is a lower fee for the customer, and the standardised process means that the fee will not change based on location.
The poll that I cited a moment ago, conducted by Ipsos MORI, showed that 63% of customers found the Land Registry proposal “appealing” or “very appealing”. Customers want to benefit from a standardised service. They want faster turnaround times, reduced running costs and lower fees. These proposals will make it quicker and easier for people to buy a property, remortgage their home and even, in many cases, start up a business.
The Land Registry has a proven track record in providing digitised information to the public. I say that to provide reassurance that this is a body capable of putting together the system that we require of it. It safeguards almost 24 million registered titles, has a customer satisfaction rate of 98% and already processes around 22 million applications electronically annually. It has extensive experience of digitising registers and a central position in the conveyancing process, as the single largest source of property information. That is why it makes it right for this body to take over the local land charges service.
History shows that this kind of step change to a modern, standardised service, with the benefits that brings to the public, simply cannot happen if the service remains split between 348 local authorities. It will require a single digital register held by a single provider to get that reduction in overheads and eliminate the endless variations in the format—never mind in the costs—of the local land charges service. We of course accept that there is a role for local knowledge; that must be maintained. Therefore, local authorities will continue to be responsible for collecting and updating all the information in the register.
Your Lordships have asked whether we are removing a valuable source of revenue for local authorities by, as it were, leaving with them an element of cost. We are in detailed discussions because we are concerned that local authorities should not bear an undue burden by providing the input that only local knowledge can provide. Local authorities would be responsible for collecting and updating the information in the register, and obviously that should not be an undue burden on them. However, if they came to us and said, “But we’re losing a source of revenue”, we would point out that the rules have made it absolutely clear that this is not meant to be a revenue-raising service; it is a cost-recovery service. Therefore, the argument that there is a loss of revenue really does not hold water, as surplus revenue is not the purpose of the current pricing system.
Some noble Lords asked about CON29 searches. I can explain that the Land Registry is examining the feasibility and developing the policy of providing CON29. However, it is important to be clear that for a property transaction, customers already go to the Land Registry for searches, so providing local land charges searches through the Land Registry portal does not add another step for them. Over time, the CON29 searches may be added to those channels but our intention is to do that in a responsible way, as an incremental phased approach. The Land Registry is well placed to bring about the benefits envisaged. For a property transaction, customers already go to the Land Registry and, as I said, it has a proven track record. While local authorities are focused on a whole range of activities, property information and serving the conveyancing market is the sole purpose of the Land Registry and its specialised expertise.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised the question of whether this is a step towards privatisation. Noble Lords will be aware that a consultation on the ownership structure of the Land Registry was begun in January and completed in March, and the Government have provided their consultation and see no reason to change the current ownership arrangements. I want to be clear on that point. The process we are proposing here—to bring new efficiency into the Land Registry system—is part of moving into the efficiency of the 21st century by taking advantage of digital technology, which has not historically been available but which is available today for the benefit of the user. Noble Lords will be aware that to some degree a whole industry has grown up which negotiates the current search process for individuals who want to buy properties, because they currently find that process so cumbersome and complex. Surely transferring that to an online system, which the ordinary user can use with ease and clarity, is the direction in which we absolutely have to go.
Noble Lords made a number of comments about the off-payroll breach. Adequate response has been given to those comments in the various letters that have been provided. However, the sort of determination to go to a centralised and digitised Land Registry system is not the work of one individual or a particular chief executive of the Land Registry, but part of a much broader process of bringing real efficiency into government. The new world of digitisation offers us all kinds of opportunities. We have to use them when they are available and when we can carry them out effectively. Therefore this is not the whim or ambition of one individual but a consistent pattern that one finds throughout government to improve implementation, delivery and efficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised the question of potential job losses at local authorities. I should point out that on average just over two people work on this at a local level, but many of them carry out other roles and will have some continuing role in providing the input data. The consequences from a job perspective therefore cannot be ruled out absolutely but are unlikely to be dramatic in the circumstances. I do not think that anybody in this Room, under any circumstances, would wish us to preserve inefficiency to protect jobs. However, in this instance, the consequences are not likely to be significant.
I believe that I have covered most of the issues that have been raised. If I have not, I will be glad to follow up and do so in writing. This clause is an important move forward that will assist people who are attempting to purchase property, to get a mortgage and to remortgage property. That group deserves to get the best service that we can provide it with. I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am disappointed but not surprised by the position taken. I was not sure whether she was clear that there is going to be no change to the Land Registry’s model during the course of this Parliament. The press release that we had yesterday just says that no decision has been taken to change the Land Registry’s model; that means that it could be changed next month, the month after or indeed tomorrow. I wonder if she might just clarify that point.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful for that. I think that I heard the words “during this Parliament” and I understand that that is as far as the Minister can go.
This is not about preserving inefficiency; it is about working out the best way to create efficiency. The Minister talked about services remaining split as they are at the moment. That is precisely what is going to happen under these proposals; there will be a separation of the local land charges and the CON29. We have heard that a feasibility study is going to be done. We have to address the possibility of bringing in CON29 in a responsible and incremental way. When I heard the phrase “responsible and incremental”, I immediately thought of universal credit.
The reality is that the Land Registry has looked at this for three years. Its original concept was to have both bits of the service in—was it not?—but it has decided that it does not know how to deal with CON29 and, therefore, to move ahead with the other bits without knowing or indeed caring what is going to happen to the separated bit left with local authorities. That seems to be foolhardy, at the very least.
The Minister made the point that this should not be revenue-generating. I accept the point that people involved in local land registries may have other duties—they may spend time on electoral registration, for example—but that does not mean that the loss of a fee does not have a financial consequence. If you are using only one-third of a person’s time, you cannot get rid of one-third of a person, although you can cut hours down in some circumstances, so the contribution to the overhead is going to be less. There is a potential ramification there.
With regard to timing, it would be interesting to know how aware the people who buy, sell or mortgage a house are of how much of the conveyancing time is actually taken up with the search process. Certainly the Law Society’s convention is that it is just a part of the total conveyancing process, which on average takes between six and eight weeks. The Minister quoted the amount of time that Camden council takes, and I am sure that there are areas where people are outside the norm, but the Government’s own impact assessment shows the general speed with which searches are returned.
I well understand the concern and growing anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the more that he considered this matter. He raised the issue of the £1 million fine that was imposed. I do not necessarily want to dig into that except that to say that for an organisation that is looking to digitalise, modernise and so on, it does not seem to bode well that it does not have the management systems in place to avoid these catastrophes.
It is right that the previous Government looked at the prospect of privatising the Land Registry. My noble friend Lord Wills was the Minister involved at the time; I spoke to him about it, and he said that it was knocked back pretty sharply. One of the driving forces behind that idea is that, frankly, it could be a nice little earner. Who knows what that database is worth? There are suggestions of £1 billion-plus, which, in an election year, obviously would not go amiss.
The users of the service, including the Law Society, the conveyancing firms and the search firms, are not supportive of this approach. From the Government’s press release when they moved back from changing the model, we know that they recognised that the Land Registry has embarked on the complex application of online and automated processes. It is going through that journey in respect of its existing business, without adding local land charges and the interface with around 350 authorities to it.
I accept that there should be a move towards digitisation. Many local authorities have done it and many are in the process of doing it. Some have started that process and I understand from the impact assessment that, if they have to pull the plug, there will not be any recompense for the investment that they have made in trying to do it. Can the Minister give any assurance on that? The real fear in all this is that this was considered in the context of a change of model. One of the changes would have quite readily led to privatisation. I think that there are some other background papers which clearly indicate that this was the path that some in the Land Registry were moving along. It seems to me that that has coloured the assessment of much of what has gone on.
The point made about the impact assessment and the consultation being undertaken by the Land Registry or the Chief Land Registrar is exactly right. Surely, if we are going to contemplate and revisit opportunities or proposals such as this, there should be an independent assessment on which this is based. Ultimately, whether they agree with it or not, people should have confidence that no ulterior motive was driving what was going on.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was trying to be helpful to his Government. I had to get my mind around the Land Registry as did the noble Lord. He made reference to 15 years but I understand that the government consultation may knock that on the head and that that will not now be a cut-off point. Some of the fears that his colleagues in local government expressed are real fears. The fear that the loss of local knowledge may be dismissed as being not important is a real issue.
I am not sure that we will have a meeting of minds this afternoon. I am sure that we will have another discussion about it at a later stage. There is a substantial head of steam opposed to these proposals, as I am sure the Minister is aware. Perhaps we could hang on to the point that the Law Society, as well as others, is saying that this is not the issue that needs to be addressed. If we are worried about conveyancing issues and the time that that takes, we should look elsewhere to the process and not be looking at this. It acknowledges that processing times have speeded up and that in recent times there has been greater standardisation of response. There has been a reduction in fees and the Government’s impact assessment has recognised the productivity gains that have been made and passed on to customers. Local land charges is not the problem that is creating concerns about conveyancing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have had a substantive debate on the Government’s proposals for the Land Registry and local land charges being removed from the Bill. We covered much of the ground in relation to Clause 24 in that same debate. Clause 24 seeks to confer additional powers on the Land Registry. It was acknowledged in the Government’s response to the wider powers consultation that the focus was on the principles of extending the powers of the Land Registry. However, Clause 24 would appear to be more than that and if it were retained, would it not be sufficient for the Land Registry to act without any further legislative approval?
This clause substitutes for certain services,
“consultancy or advisory services about land or other property in England and Wales or elsewhere … information services about land or other property … or … services relating to documents or registers which relate to land or other property in England and Wales”.
If that were carried through, would it not be within the remit of the Land Registry to act on it without further legislative processes? I see that in the responses to the consultation, the challenge was that the consultation did not provide sufficient detail of the services that the Land Registry intends to undertake under its proposed wider powers. The Government’s response was that the part of the consultation on wider powers related to the principle of Land Registry powers being extended to enable it to provide new services. Frankly, what is in the Bill does not seem to correspond with that. What is provided for there is an expansion of the types of services that may be provided.
In any event, in the response to the delivery company consultation the Government made it clear that they consider there to be,
“benefits in creating an arm’s length service delivery company to … modernise”,
the Land Registry and,
“to support new opportunities for the business to play a wider role in the property market”.
There is clearly a linkage between the commercial model and the additional powers. However, as it is agreed that the service delivery company model needs further consideration and there is a commitment to consult again if it is taken forward, should this not apply to Clause 24 so that it can be removed from the Bill, at least for the time being, even if it has to be reinstated in due course?
Either this provision is simply widening the services that can be provided or it is dealing with the principle that is tied up with the service company delivery model which the Government have taken away to consider further. The only safe thing in those circumstances seems to be for that clause not to stand part of the Bill. If there are going to be changes to the model in due course, there will need to be further legislation in any event. If this is tied to that, it needs to be dealt with at that same time.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, Clause 24 gives wider powers to the Land Registry to enable it to play a greater role in the property sector. The Government’s goal is to make the conveyancing process quicker, cheaper and easier to complete. As we have said before, the Land Registry is the single largest source of property information. It has a proven track record of digitisation of registers, 98% customer satisfaction and a record of reducing fees, with almost 22 million applications processed electronically last year. Most importantly, it sits at the heart of the conveyancing process.
At present, the Land Registry is limited in the services it can offer, not by what is in the public interest but by its statutory powers. This clause corrects that. Giving wider powers to the Land Registry will enable it to provide a range of property information services for businesses and citizens, helping to manage records, keep track of markets and identify business opportunities. The needs of the customers and stakeholders of the Land Registry are constantly changing, and allowing it to meet those changing needs must surely benefit both the property market and the overall economy.
The Land Registry’s ability to engage in new services is not a new concept. The Land Registration Act 2002 already enables it to provide consultancy and advisory services related to the registration of land. It is already using those powers to provide services such as international consultancy on land registration and a range of add-value services relating to land registration information. The new services would be provided on a cost-recovery basis, and the Land Registry would consider undertaking new services and activities only where that could bring savings, efficiencies and other benefits to the property market. This is part of the current move to make sure that we maximise the benefit of the information that is available within government entities in order to benefit residents and, in the case of the Land Registry, particularly those involved in property arrangements.
I also want to make it clear that this is not a necessary mechanism for the digitisation that we have been discussing or for providing services to taxpayers. The process that we have been describing—the core change here—is not dependent on any sort of commercial model, but we think it is rational to permit these additional powers. Given the breadth and depth of its expertise, the Government want to allow the Land Registry to broaden its activities to provide that kind of additional information as part of the infrastructure which others in the property market can then build on and innovate from. This is relatively straightforward and very much in keeping with the whole direction in which access to information, transparency and various kinds of support are now being provided by many parts of government. It recognises that the Land Registry is very much at the heart of conveyancing and central to the whole property industry, and that therefore it has the potential to benefit the sector by expanding the services that it offers, based on needs as they arise and as they change.
Therefore, there is no sinister motive behind this. As I said, it is very much in keeping with modern practice. It is very important that this clause stands part of the Bill so that we can gain the greatest benefits for the property market, for the economy and for the many members of our communities who use that market.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for her reply but perhaps I may just be clear. Does she consider that what is set down in Clause 24 is sufficient for the Land Registry to commence some of these services, having done its internal assessment? Obviously it is not going to embark on something which it believes will make a profit. Where does that leave the comment in the Government’s response that the Land Registry,
“would consider undertaking new services and activities only where it could bring savings, efficiencies and other benefits … An assessment would be made on market need and LR would engage with stakeholders and, where appropriate, consult on any significant initiatives”?
In a sense, is the Minister saying that these provisions are subject to that response?
Baroness Kramer
Is this a question about whether we are intending to change the commercial model of the Land Registry? Clearly we are not. If that is an answer to the question asked by noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, then I can give that assurance. I think that I made it clear in describing the kinds of services that the Land Registry would seek to offer that those services would be in response to market need. Obviously that requires extensive engagement with the various stakeholders and others who would use the services. It seems to me that that is the kind of partnership relationship, as one could almost call it, that there would be. The Land Registry would therefore consult on any major change precisely because its goal is to make sure that it provides the most appropriate kind of response.
The sorts of factors that would be considered before a new service was introduced would include things such as the impact on the property market, any competition issues, and capability and capacity issues. At this point in time, it is difficult to detail those proposals because we are in a dynamic environment. Therefore, this is essentially an enabling provision but, I think, an entirely appropriate one.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that. I do not want to make a meal of this but perhaps I may ask for a final clarification. Are we saying that these services are distinct from any change in the Land Registry’s model—that there might be a change in the Land Registry’s model but these services would still go ahead on some basis or another—or that there would be no change to the model and these services might still be commenced?
Baroness Kramer
Perhaps I can be clear. The whole issue of the model, by which I assume the noble Lord means ownership, is an entirely separate question. The two are not interlinked.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I take the model to be in the sense of not only the corporate structure but the separation of the office of the chief registrar and what was termed in the consultation as a delivery company.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, has made a very interesting and compelling speech. I am more than ever pleased that I was one of his supporters when he took his seat in the House. I have greatly admired what he has been able to do over the years since then, and this is not the least of his achievements. He made a strong case, and I entirely recognise that. The question that I ask is who would initiate these big schemes? I entirely agree with him that these are desirable measures, if we are going to try to reach our housing target, and I entirely agree with him that planning should not be an obstacle to that. The Planning Inspectorate, which, as the noble Lord said, would have to be the body to decide on whether to allow or disallow the investment for something of more than 1,500 houses, is not an initiating body. It does not propose schemes and is not a body like, for instance, the development corporations that now exist in some parts of the country. Its powers are not like those which the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London have to initiate large schemes of housing, or indeed anything else.
On the point that the noble Lord made about the speed at which it has to approve applications made, of course that starts from the point when it is considering the application. One thing about the inspectorate—and indeed its predecessor, which was proposed by the former Government of the Labour Party—was that it insisted that all consultation of local opinion should be achieved and established before it started to consider the application. I think that everybody approves of that. It is a very good way of approaching this, so that when looking at the application and its impact you do not waste a lot of time on questioning whether local communities or other local interests were consulted.
I am interested as the noble Lord, like me, is of course a champion of localism. At Second Reading, I criticised the Local Government Association’s statement that it did not see planning as an obstacle to growth and development. I quoted some statements that have been made regarding the interests of those who see this from another perspective. I felt, as I argued, that that was a rather unrealistic statement. Of course, it has to be speeded up, but I had a long brief from the Local Government Association, as we have all done from time to time on various Bills. I am a vice-president of the LGA, but it is interesting that it has not offered any comment on this amendment, neither for nor against. It has argued—this is perhaps my central point—that what is needed is organisations which will promote the kind of development that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has been describing. It has argued that there ought to be development corporations along the lines that now exist in certain areas.
I am a huge supporter of the various efforts that have been made to encourage local authorities to join together, perhaps over quite a wide area. One has seen that first in the city deals that have been made, which are proving quite extraordinarily effective. They are a very interesting new instrument of localism, which will surely produce substantial benefits for the future. However, it goes wider than that as it is not just city deals but local authorities which can get together to plan and initiate projects, for which they can then find investors and so deal with them. To my mind, that is the way that it should be done. If you then have local authorities or, as I think it would have to be, development corporations formed by local authorities, that is the way in which they can have what I certainly support: that the decisions should be made locally.
The difficulty with this amendment, although I understood clearly and listened with great interest to the arguments, is that it goes contrary to the whole thrust of policy in many of these related areas: seeking to devolve authority from the centre down to the locality.
Of course, the noble Lord is quite right that there are always nimbys, and that is a problem that has to be addressed. When I was Environment Secretary, my very splendid chief planning adviser John Delafons— who is sadly no longer with us—after asking me, “Secretary of State, have you heard of NIMBYs?”, to which I said yes, he asked, “Have you heard of NOTE?”, to which I said no, so he explained: “Not over there either”. He also had another story that I liked: “The man who occupies the end house in a new housing estate on the edge of a town promptly becomes the secretary of the local conservation society—‘I’m all right, Jack, and I don’t want any more!’”. Those are the kinds of very human, but really rather damaging, impacts that these influences can have.
Would centralising the decisions into the hands of the local Planning Inspectorate make any difference? It might, but surely the right answer is for local developers—or perhaps development corporations supported by a consortium of local authorities, as might be necessary—to win the argument. Some of them are very good at it; others need to match their skills. However, I have some doubts about whether centralising the decision into the hands of the Planning Inspectorate, which is what the amendment calls for, is the right way forward. It might help, but it would also do other things that may be less helpful. Indeed, I think that there are better ways of doing this. It is interesting that local authorities have been arguing for the right to set up development corporations as the Mayor of London can do, but they have not actually put any amendments to me about how that might be properly achieved. Perhaps that is an issue to which we can return on Report, which might be a better peg on which to hang this.
I end on the note with which the noble Lord, Lord Best, began, which is that nobody doubts the acute seriousness of the housing problem in this country. In part, the problem is about overcoming environmental resistance, although one can understand some of that; in part, it is caused by the difficulty of getting developers interested in brownfield sites. I was very struck by the statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DCLG, Eric Pickles, which was repeated by noble friend Lady Stowell on 16 June, about what is being done to encourage more development on brownfield sites. There will be extra help for London, but more important is that the success of London in getting ahead of this is now to be emulated in other parts of the country. It seems to me that these are the ways in which one ought to try to deal with this.
I will therefore listen with great interest to my noble friend’s response to the amendment, which has a very considerable appeal, but I have to say that I am not wholly convinced that it is the right answer.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, got us off to a good start in our deliberations on Part 3 of the Bill. He touched upon a fundamental issue facing the country—and, indeed, as other noble Lords said, all political parties at this time—which is the housing crisis. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will forgive me for quoting a few statistics in a little while, but this crisis is characterised by an acute housing shortage, with housebuilding falling to its lowest levels in peacetime since the 1920s, home ownership being unaffordable for many low to middle-income families, a falling programme of homes for social rent, an unaffordable “affordable rent” model and a burgeoning private rented sector in which rents are rising—all accompanied by insecurity and uncertainty in the marketplace.
The Government will claim that they have built some 445,000 houses since 2010, but this represents just over 110,000 a year—way short of what we need, the 243,000 figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Best. This is less than half of what the country needs. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that since 2010 the gap between housing supply and demand has increased by more than half a million homes, with London bearing the brunt of the increasing shortfall. It has been reported that DCLG Ministers have been advised of the prospect of the number of housing starts falling in 2014, with just 16,000 affordable home starts. Perhaps I can ask the Minister whether that is correct.
Lord Best
I agree entirely. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was very supportive but had some doubts. It was important to hear the plans that are now being formulated by the Labour Party. I know that Sir Michael Lyons’s review is due out fairly soon. I think that will be a creative and important contribution to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made the point that long-term consensus is going to be essential and we have to work our way towards that, even though he has some reservations about this particular approach.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, very much for her response and for underlining the Government’s commitment to increasing supply, which is the essence of this. My suggestion is by no means a silver bullet, that is for sure. Loans, guarantees, et cetera, are all good; it is whether or not the volume that we need is going to be achieved by the measures that are currently there. With regard to reliance on local plans—remembering that you have no duty as a local authority to meet the needs of your neighbours or of the nation—your local plan must relate to the requirements of your own locality, and that may not encourage you to believe that a very major development is within your remit.
I take the point entirely that the pre-application process adds another year or so to the whole, so in total from beginning to end, with the 28 days from the Secretary of State at the beginning, one may well reach three years. But believe you me, three years for a major development is a triumph in relation to the time that we now must wait to get things done.
This is a proposal for a Bill, not a proposal in itself.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
How does the noble Lord see the issue of the use of the infrastructure planning regime for garden cities and new towns, given the scale of what they entail—very big developments over the longer period? The TCPA thought that the infrastructure planning process did not really suit that. That is why I thought we almost had three situations. There is the local authority with its usual planning role and responsibilities for housing. There are new town development corporations with the much needed mega-expansions. My reservations were about the extent to which intermediate positions would be best dealt with by the infrastructure planning regime or by some other route.
Lord Best
I am sure that that distinction is exactly right. A development corporation need not necessarily go for 15,000 homes, which I believe is the target for Ebbsfleet, the first of these new garden cities. We are looking here at the more modest proposals; ones that are none the less enormous in relation to the place. It may well be that the development corporation model works just as well with a master plan for 1,500 homes as it does for 15,000 and the opportunities that that brings with it, requiring something in between the mega and the everyday that can be encompassed within the local plan.
The amendment is a proposal for a Bill within a year of this Bill becoming an Act. That would give an opportunity for that Bill to take forward all the detailed aspects of this, things such as who exercises compulsory purchase powers in these circumstances or whether one requires a national policy statement as for other aspects of infrastructure that would go with this measure. That is all to play for. At this stage, I thank all those who joined in and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment that enables us better to understand what is intended by a very specific provision. It also gives us the opportunity more generally to assess progress on the process for dealing with nationally significant infrastructure projects.
To the narrow point first: for non-material changes to a development consent order, the duty to comply with consultation and publicity requirements is placed upon the person applying for consent as well as on the Secretary of State. The Explanatory Note suggests that that “may” happen although it would appear to be automatic given the wording of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could elucidate. If it is not automatic, who makes the decision to place that obligation on the applicant? When it comes to the exercise of the discretion, it is not clear how prescriptive the regulations will be in setting the parameters of that discretion, and particularly what scope the applicant may have to, say, disapply prescribed consultation requirements. Perhaps the Minister could put something on the record in that regard.
We note that this clause and Clauses 17 and 18, which we support, spring from the review of the nationally significant infrastructure planning regime review. Much of what flows from that review will do so in regulations and guidance, much of it outside the timeframe for our consideration of the Bill. In principle, the direction of travel of that review is something we can support. The creation of the nationally significant infrastructure regime by the Planning Act 2008 was important in seeking to simplify and speed up planning consents for infrastructure projects, as we just discussed. However, even in the short time since that Act there have been changes to the legislation: transferring power back to Ministers, which was then delegated straight back to the Planning Inspectorate; widening the scope so that other major developments are included; eliminating the need for certain consents; establishing the consents service unit; and setting up the major infrastructure and environment unit.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for outlining his support for Clauses 17, 18 and 19, and for explaining the reasons for tabling his amendment and seeking clarification about what we are intending with the proposals outlined in Clause 19. I hope that I am able to give him the reassurance he is looking for. I will do my best to be simple and straightforward in explaining this, but it is quite a technical thing to explain. I am quite confident that we share the same objectives, so I will give it a go and if needs be we can always talk further, I am sure.
Clause 19 will provide the framework for changes to regulations that will provide a quicker and simpler process for making changes to development consent orders. We will be consulting on changes to regulations shortly. For non-material changes, we will be proposing that responsibility for publicising and consulting on an application should in future lie with the applicant rather than the Secretary of State. Crucially, that will bring the process for making a non-material change in line with the rest of the Planning Act. In moving the responsibility for publicising and consulting on an application to the applicant, the Government want to ensure the necessary flexibility in the regulations to ensure that non-material changes that are unlikely to have significant impacts can be made quickly. In view of that, we intend to retain the provision in the existing regulations that would allow an applicant not to consult someone, but that would be only where they had gained the consent of the Secretary of State to do so.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and others who may be interested in this part of the Bill, have seen the briefing paper which we prepared in advance of this Sitting of the Committee. We circulated it by e-mail earlier this week. I will happily send it round again if anyone has not seen the document to which I am referring. The briefing paper gives a preliminary indication of the changes to the regulations on which we will consult later this month, so the consultation should start fairly soon.
The briefing paper does not suggest that we intend to change the current consultation and publicity requirements for non-material changes. I hope that once noble Lords have had the opportunity to consider the consultation paper on changes to the regulations, they will be reassured that the Government are not proposing to use the power of discretion provided in Clause 19 to allow applicants to decide who they should and should not consult. Applicants will continue to consult those persons and bodies set out in the regulations unless they have the consent of the Secretary of State not to do so. Given those comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about progress on applications and decisions through the nationally significant infrastructure regime. Twenty applications have now gone all the way through the system and 19 have been granted consent, so that is a 95% approval rate. There was one refusal, which concerned the Preesall gas storage application. This project is being redetermined following judicial review. Four applications have been decided in 2014, with another nine expected, and 13 were decided in 2013. Two were decided in 2012 and one in 2011 through the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Therefore, the regime is being used, and we can see from the number of applications that the process is working. There are 56 applications in the pre-application phase and more in other parts of the system. I hope that gives the noble Lord the information he was looking for and that I have given him the reassurance he sought on this part of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation which dealt precisely with my narrow inquiry about the exercise of discretion. If I understood her correctly, it is clear that the Secretary of State’s permission will be needed if an applicant seeks to exercise discretion in this regard. The Minister gave a very helpful update on the statistics. It would also be helpful if at some point, not necessarily this afternoon, those figures could be broken down by sector or type of project and if a distinction could be made between those that arose in respect of the original construct of the infrastructure commission and those that fall within the expanded definitions and facilities in the Growth and Infrastructure Act. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord McKenzie of Luton, and would enable local authorities to set their own permitted development rights. I am grateful to have the support of the Labour Benches for this amendment. I take it to be a commitment on behalf of the Labour Party that this will become government policy, should it ever be in a position to make it so. As we all know, the current system is centrally set and nationally determined and local authorities have extremely limited opportunities to change or vary what is set down nationally.
The Minister has already said today, and on many occasions, and I know she firmly believes it, that the people best placed to take these decisions are local planning authorities. We heard this in an earlier debate this afternoon. Local planning authorities are in a position to know what local needs, priorities and circumstances are, they know best what is needed to determine and stimulate local growth, yet they do not have the opportunity to set their own permitted development rights. Surely, it must follow logically from all that we all say that local authorities should have the power and ability to set such rights themselves. That is the purpose of this amendment, and in view of what has been said in earlier debates today I am confident of its acceptance. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated, we have added our names to this amendment and we support it. It took me back to a debate during the course of the Growth and Infrastructure Act when identical amendments were moved and rejected by the Government. The Government’s defence then was that the Article 4 direction would be a route that local authorities could use if they were not happy with what central government was doing. At that point, there was disagreement between the LGA and the Government about how user-friendly that route actually was. The Government were going to talk to the LGA to see whether those matters could be clarified, so it would be very helpful to know whether any clarification was forthcoming. In particular, there was an issue about how the Secretary of State should approach the use of Article 4. I refer to the debate on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill:
“Is it still the position that the Secretary of State’s general approach to making an Article 4 direction, as set out in paragraph 4.23 of planning policy guidance note 15—”
here I asked whether that policy guidance still existed—
“is that, ‘permitted development rights should not be withdrawn without clear justification’?”.—[Official Report, 12/3/2013; col. 195.]
It would be helpful to know whether that interpretation is still imposed upon the Secretary of State in dealing with any Article 4 direction.
Having said that and raised those inquiries, I thoroughly support the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, this will be considerably shorter than the last intervention I made. I assure my noble friend Lord Tope that I think this is a good point. It will certainly have my support, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
“National infrastructure projects: new towns
(1) The objects of a development corporation established for the purpose of creating a new town shall be to secure the physical laying out of infrastructure and the long-term sustainable development of the new town.
(2) In this section, sustainable development means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.
(3) In achieving sustainable development, development corporations should—
(a) positively identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the town;(c) contribute to the cultural and artistic development of the town;(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;(e) contribute to mitigation of and adaptation of climate change consistent with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and(h) ensure that assets are managed in the long-term interest of the community.(4) In this section “infrastructure” includes—
(a) water, electricity, gas, telecommunications, sewerage and other services;(b) roads, railways and other transport facilities;(c) retail and other business facilities;(d) health, educational, employment and training facilities;(e) social, religious, recreational and cultural facilities;(f) green infrastructure and ecosystems;(g) cremation and burial facilities; and(h) community facilities not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f); and“land” is defined as including all the matters set out in the definition of “land” in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, and also housing including (where the context permits) any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to, or usually enjoyed with, the building or part of building concerned.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the TCPA for its enthusiastic counsel in drafting this amendment and for advising me on it.
Overall, we consider that the planning sections of the Infrastructure Bill are a lost opportunity to lay the foundations of a planning system that can help deliver the homes and places the nation deserves. This very much builds on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Bill continues in the long line of measures which reduce the powers of local authorities in ways which in turn risk creating real impacts for individuals and communities. We will discuss Clause 20 shortly. Given the negative nature of the Bill, we propose to use this amendment as a vehicle for a much more positive debate about how planning could be made fit for purpose. We do this by seeking to insert a new clause which would amend the objectives of the new town development corporations. This allows for a more comprehensive debate on the principles and positive purpose that might drive the delivery of quality growth and new homes which is so vital to our nations. Both coalition parties, we understand, support new towns and garden cities—as, indeed, do we. We should be able to find common cause on these issues.
The proposed new clause flows out of the detailed research that the TCPA carried out on the measures necessary to make the existing new town legislation fit for purpose. The legislation, in the form of the New Towns Act 1981, is still in force and provides for the setting up of powerful new town development corporations which can drive delivery. The development corporation was the engine that drove the rapid deployment of the new town programme and had the following core powers: compulsory purchase of land where it could not be bought by voluntary agreement; the preparation of a master plan which, after public inquiry and approval by the Minister, would be the statutory development plan; the power to apply to the Minister for the equivalent of outlying planning permission for comprehensive tracts of the new town to control development—that is, to process planning applications; to deliver key utilities in partnership with the relevant agencies; to procure housing subsidised by government grant and other means; to act as a housing association in the management of housing; and to carry out any other activity necessary for the development of the town.
Although strong on delivery, therefore, the outcomes of new towns did not always reflect the highest design and quality standards. In addition, there is now a need to modernise the objectives of NTDCs to ensure that they have the visionary purpose to effect change while creating new opportunities for partnership and participation and a low-carbon future. Due partly to the nature of the new towns legislation, little of the high social ambition which drove the originators of the 1946 Act was reflected in the legal objectives of the development corporations. These were quite brief and mechanistic, referring only to the laying out and development of the new town.
There is therefore a risk that development corporations might see themselves as engineering departments rather than organisations engaged in the wider social enterprise of place-making. Over the past 30 years there has also been a wide recognition that planning has few, if any, outcome duties. This has in turn led to much criticism that planning has become a process without a purpose. New legal processes have been introduced to focus the system on sustainable development, climate change and good design, but they do not apply to development corporations because they are not local planning authorities.
The suggested new clause is designed to extend and modernise the list of objectives and duties of new town development corporations. In order to modernise the objectives, the first proposed new clause draws on the outcome duties in both the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Planning Act 2008, as well as the legislation that created the Homes and Communities Agency, which has statutory objectives that include people’s well-being, good design and sustainable development. The redrafted clause also introduces new and important obligations on the social and cultural as well as physical and economic development of the new town, through strengthening requirements for public participation. It also includes a new definition of “sustainable development” based on the successful wording of the New Zealand Act. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, there is a lot to be said for the amendment. Indeed, it follows from what I said earlier this afternoon about the need for more local authority development corporations. I will not repeat that, but it was in the context of local housing estates, which the amendment is not specifically addressing.
My point in a sense supports the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. This country has learnt a great deal about planning of new towns. I lived for some years not far from Harlow and, even 20 or 25 years after it was founded, there was still talk of what had become known as “new town blues”. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who knows much more about this than I do. However, the new town blues were caused not just by the separation of families, when they went from crowded urban areas to rural areas outside the cities, but because those rural areas were designed with enormous spaces between different little bits of housing. Harlow was a very good example of that. There really could be almost no interaction between little local communities, which felt themselves very much cut off. No one had cars in those days; they relied on foot and bicycle, and whatever public transport might be provided. We have learnt an enormous amount since then. The design of more recent developments is, if I may put it this way, very much more user-friendly. I hope that we shall see that very much at Ebbsfleet. That helps local committees to gel and to develop a local identity. They left that behind when they moved from the cities and, often, city communities were divided as some went to some new towns and some to others.
I saw this a bit in Liverpool, where a lot of the Liverpool council development was in large, out-of-town housing estates that were often quite hideous, with a lot of huge, tall concrete blocks. I hope that I was instrumental in securing something for a group that was eventually called the Eldonians, a tight-knit community of people who were absolutely determined that that was not going to happen to them. Yes, there needed to be redevelopment, but we were able to secure that in a single site, fairly close to where they were already living. I was helped by the fact that the Tate and Lyle sugar factory had closed and that we therefore had a readily available site. To the fury of the Militant Tendency, as it then was, within the leadership of the Liverpool City Council, I was able to insist that that site went to the Eldonians. They have been very kind in their recognition of that ever since, and that community is still going strong.
This is what one has to do: to try to preserve communities, so that they can retain and build their identities to become what one would like to see—a really flourishing social unit. This country has learnt a lot about that. Regarding the development corporations in new towns to which this amendment speaks, I was urging earlier the inclusion of development corporations with the power to initiate substantial housing estates, with the necessary accompanying infrastructure. We are now much better at understanding this, and the planners and other people who have been involved with this deserve great credit. I hope that the Bill will lead to more of the same.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I and the Government certainly share the vision that noble Lords expressed for great design and quality, and for the kind of communities that noble Lords talked about today. It is absolutely essential that in developing new places for people to live the kind of points raised in the debate today are very much reflected in the design and execution of those plans. However, it would be unhelpful to prescribe the objects of a new town development corporation in such detail as set out in the new clause put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
As the noble Lord said, the objects of the new town development corporations are set out in the New Towns Act 1981. They are quite simply to secure the laying out and development of the new town. We believe that that brevity is helpful because it allows the detailed objectives of development corporations to be established in each particular case, in consultation with the local area and reflecting local needs. Prescribing such detail in primary legislation takes away that opportunity.
I say to all noble Lords who have spoken today that the Government attach great importance to the design of the built environment. It is a key aspect of sustainable development and we have made that clear in the National Planning Policy Framework and our planning guidance. These make clear that local and neighbourhood plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development expected for the area. As I have already said, the proposed new clause would mean that sustainable development should be included in the new town development corporations’ objects. Although we strongly support the principle of sustainable development, we think that it is right that it is made clear in the National Planning Policy Framework. Making separate provision for one part of the planning system would serve only to dilute that clarity by defining sustainable development differently for different types of development.
It is worth reminding ourselves that no new town development corporations have been created since 1970. However, urban development corporations have been established more recently and the Government propose the establishment of a new one at Ebbsfleet. Unlike new town development corporations, an urban development corporation can be designated as the local planning authority for its area. Where this happens and it exercises functions in relation to local development documents, it is subject to the duty in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to exercise those functions with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
In the context of Ebbsfleet, I can reassure noble Lords that we want to ensure that Ebbsfleet is a real place where people want to live and work. In setting the vision for Ebbsfleet Garden City, the urban development corporation will look closely at what garden city principles mean in an existing urban context, such as Ebbsfleet. It will work with local partners to support them in developing and delivering a high-quality settlement with locally available jobs and generous green space.
I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said. My response to her and to others who have contributed today is that we absolutely share that fundamental principle of ensuring that, where new houses are built, communities are created which are properly designed and in which people want to live. However, we feel that prescribing this in primary legislation as the noble Lord has proposed is unnecessary, and I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I start by thanking all noble Lords across the Committee who have spoken in support of this amendment. The Minister’s response does not altogether surprise me; it is where I thought the Government might be, but it is a pity that she is arguing for brevity. It is difficult to see what should be excluded or what anybody would want to remove from those objects and general powers of development corporations. They may wish to add to it; they may have a particular local focus on it, but that somebody should not want any of those is quite difficult to understand, although I understand where the Government are coming from.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who said that this is about having a vision for a place, a community and a town. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, focused on the point that this should not just be about a mechanistic, technical approach to building new developments; it has got to be something more fundamental. My noble friend Lady Andrews, with all her incredible wealth of experience, talked about planning as something which is creative and positive, not something which is mechanistic. She speaks with huge passion and experience on that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, again speaking from a fantastic wealth of experience, made the point that things have moved on in recent years. There is the potential of a consensus to create something which may not be the precise wording here, but at least moves us on from where we are.
Would the Minister be prepared to meet the TCPA, just to talk through this issue, to see whether there is anything which can be created which does not necessarily pick up that precise wording, but seeks to retain the concept, the vision and the belief that we should be about more than just delivering bricks and mortar? I am sure that she meets them on a range of occasions. Would she be prepared to facilitate that, together with the TCPA?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Both I and my colleagues at the department are always open to meeting different people and I would never refuse a meeting, but if I or one of my colleagues were to agree to a meeting, it would be important for me to be clear at the start what the Government’s position is. I have outlined that today—but, on that basis, my door is always open to anybody who would like to come and talk to me.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I respond to my noble friend. He is someone for whom I have a huge amount of respect. I acknowledge just how experienced he is as a previous Secretary of State. He will know and understand the limitations I have when I stand at the Dispatch Box. When I meet anybody, I am willing to listen to what they have to say, but I feel I am duty bound, in agreeing to a meeting, to make clear what my starting position would be. I am always, of course, open-minded, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was generous enough to acknowledge in her contribution to the debate.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance about the prospect of a meeting, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I hope that noble Lords who have been involved in the debate today might join that meeting. I hope we can bring something back at a later stage in the Bill to keep this issue alive, notwithstanding what the Government have said today. It is an opportunity. These Bills do not come up—well, I suppose infrastructure Bills do come up quite frequently, actually; sometimes more frequently than one would want. Maybe we will have another one next year. I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“except that it does not apply to any condition designed to mitigate direct impacts on public amenity, health or well-being.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 79D, I will speak to the other amendments and on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. In so far as there are issues to address about the discharge of planning permissions, it is suggested that these can be dealt with in another way than that provided for in the Bill. As it stands, the clause is yet another example of central government disempowering local planning authorities.
The ability to impose conditions is an important part of the planning process. They are an alternative to outright refusal of planning permission and therefore an aid to development. By potentially mitigating the adverse effects of the development, they can enable it to proceed. If conditions are imposed, it is important that they are properly discharged, otherwise the system is undermined. Of course, conditions should not be spurious; they should be carefully justified and relate to clear planning issues and policy. They are usually an interlocking set of measures designed to ensure that the development does not harm the public interest.
The NPPF states that:
“Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects”.
The Planning Portal has compiled a set of model planning conditions. There is a right of appeal against what might be considered an inappropriate condition. By way of example, conditions might include requirements for a development to be completed in accordance with lifetime homes standards; for a commercial premises to have cleaning and extraction equipment approved by the LPA; for a restriction on the activity that can be carried out in or from particular premises; or for the protection of, say, an archaeological site. To have these conditions unfulfilled could materially affect the well-being of individuals and negate the planning process.
Of course, local planning authorities should not be entitled to sit and ignore and not sign off situations where conditions have been properly fulfilled, but the route of deemed consent is a heavy-handed and dangerous remedy. We have no idea how it is to be implemented. For a start, the deeming process will proceed by way of a development order, which is subject only to the negative parliamentary procedure. There does not appear to be any provision requiring an applicant to have attempted or succeeded in discharging the conditions for the deeming to be applied—hence Amendment 80. No judgment is required of the Secretary of State as to whether any adverse consequences for the community would arise from a discharge—hence Amendment 81. There are lessening opportunities to mitigate the adverse impacts on public amenities, health and well-being—hence Amendment 79D. There seems to be the prospect that the applicant himself may be given the opportunity to decide when the deemed discharge is to take effect, and no rationale is offered for this—hence Amendment 82. There is no certain relief from the deeming or any delays in the local planning authority responding within the given period that are wholly or partly caused by statutory consultees, the applicant or indeed anyone else. In short, we have no idea how this proposition is to be applied, and we trust that the Minister will be able to give us at least some comfort today.
If a development has been frustrated by unreasonable conditions in the first place, and a failure to address their discharge in the second, it is of course reasonable that the matter is addressed. But the work of the LGA, in conjunction with the BPF, the Planning Officers Society and the Home Builders Federation, should clearly be given a chance before these draconian measures are taken.
In conclusion, perhaps I might ask some questions of the Minister. Could this lead to conditions not having to be implemented or acted on? If so, in what circumstances can that happen? For example, in response to the Killian Pretty report, the then Government identified the use of approved contractors and a fast-track appeals process for matters concerned only with the discharge of conditions. Have the Government given any further consideration to that route, rather than the one adopted in this clause? What research have the Government undertaken to determine why local authorities are not responding to the application for consent, agreement or approval in due time? What is the extent of this failure? In how many local planning authorities has this happened, and how frequently? What consideration have the Government given to the potential negative effect of this clause in discouraging some essential conditions on the basis that the local planning authority has the capacity to deal only with other, fewer conditions—thereby impacting on the quality of development? What is the Government’s assessment of the capacity of local planning authority departments to deal with this, given the huge reductions in funding that local authorities have had to endure?
These are hugely important issues that go to the heart of our planning process, and I look forward to the support of other noble Lords and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, it is with some concern that I rise to address these amendments and to support the thoughtful and measured way in which my noble friend has introduced them, including the debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I shall focus on a specific aspect that comes within the scope of the clause stand-part debate.
I am very concerned about this, and I speak, in part, on behalf of a wide range of heritage organisations. I no longer have a hat on, and therefore no longer have an interest to declare. I am, however, still very engaged with the work of organisations ranging from English Heritage and the Heritage Alliance to the British Archaeological Association and many others. Their concerns exemplify some of the major concerns that have been raised by noble Lords about the impact of the clause as a whole. These organisations understand very well how easy it is to destabilise the planning system. They were engaged first-hand with the creation of the National Planning Policy Framework, with all the checks and balances that took a long time to work out. It is, in fact, an important and delicate balance, which we would be wise to ensure that we stick to. Of course, they are also concerned, not just with the monuments, but with the everyday, ordinary environments in which we live in this country: our towns, villages and everywhere else. The fact that Clause 20 has raised such profound concerns among these senior organisations should give the Government pause for thought.
I see in this clause yet another attempt to wrench the planning system around in a way that is deeply inappropriate. Over the past few years we have seen the Government reach for the planning system as a recourse and sometimes as a first resort, to try to tackle problems which are far more fundamental, being rooted in economic and social problems. Planning is not the problem. I am afraid that I see this as another casual, Pavlovian response to problems which have their roots in the lack of capacity of local authorities and the complexity of what it takes to have a balanced planning system. This clause will have very perverse—even disastrous—consequences, and my noble friends are quite right to speak with seriousness about it.
I understand the frustration that comes from delays in the system and that the provision is intended to address the stalemate of “no response” from local authorities. But my goodness, what a hammer has been picked up here. It is so broadly cast at the moment, as my noble friend said, and it is not at all obvious what safeguards are to be put in place. I say to the Government: given what local authorities, developers and communities are facing in the maelstrom of planning at the moment, yet another element of uncertainty is really bad news.
I will explain how I think that will affect what happens to what we call heritage protection, which is shorthand for ensuring that our historical environment is accommodated within our future plans and contributes to them in an economic and social way. Much of our heritage protection is effected through conditions attached to outline planning permission, because it is detailed work. Archaeological surveys and design detailing of extensions and new buildings—for example, to cathedrals or to some of our historic monuments—are very often secured by conditions. The department knows this very well. They are fundamental to heritage protection—to what we end up with: what it looks like, what it feels like and what it will do. That is what is at risk here. I therefore ask the noble Lord: what will be the situation vis-à-vis outline planning permission? Can we take it that the situation will be different in the future in relation to both outline planning permission and conditions? Can I please have a clear answer on that?
Of course, we are aware of the need for best process. However, we have to ensure that the process does not sacrifice the best outcomes for what we all want by means of the outcome of the eventual planning decision. Therefore, while it is the applicant’s right to have their application for discharge of the condition dealt with fairly and expeditiously, clearly the historic environment agencies would be very concerned by a provision that meant simply that if the applicant heard nothing back, the condition was discharged.
We all know what it means to be overwhelmed by work. The volume of letters and e-mails we get in this House alone is not as great as it is for Ministers but we know what the noble Lord means when he says that things get overlooked and slip by. As my noble friend said, we are looking at issues of capacity here. Perhaps the Minister could write to tell me how many planning officers have been lost from local authorities across the country. That is a bit onerous, but I know that surveys have been carried out by the Local Government Association, for example, and by English Heritage. Perhaps the Minister could help us to focus on exactly what lack of capacity we are looking at. We know that they have lost many senior and deeply experienced staff; there has been a sharing of jobs; and altogether, a huge strain has been placed on planning departments in recent years. I am not making that an excuse for shoddy work, but it is all too easy for planning departments simply not to be able to do things in the time allocated these days, and there is a huge amount of pressure on them—we must realise that.
The sector would certainly like clarification that safeguards will be put in place to protect the historic environment from any unintended consequences arising from this clause. Any system that allows decisions by default on such important matters is very perilous. Our historical environment is extremely fragile. Once it is gone, it is gone. The safeguards put forward in some of these amendments are certainly worth looking at. They include allowing the LPA to extend time for consideration where there is reasonable justification, or a second notice requirement from the applicants subsequent to the application to invoke the default provision if they have heard nothing back. The latter is to reduce the risk of the application having been overlooked.
We are determined to pursue this clause and its implications, for very serious reasons. I have spoken about the historic environment, but the same problems apply to the natural environment and many other aspects of decision-making where everything depends on the quality of the judgment and the detail that is set out in conditions, because that is what makes the difference between good planning and bad planning, good design and bad design and places that are worth living in and places where we think, “Why on earth did they let that happen?”. I hope the Minister will take that seriously.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am always eager to make sure that noble Lords do not leave here unhappy. On this occasion, and especially having felt that I was not doing what I always seek to do with my noble friend, I can confirm that the Government will respond to the consultation before we get to Report. That response will be available.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for her detailed and full response to the range of points that were raised. Clearly, we need to look at the record and reflect on our concerns and the extent to which they may have been met by what the Minister said. I, too, had a question on the consultation but I am reassured to know that we will see the response by the time we come back at the end of the summer.
We probably need to spend some more time on the issues around Killian Pretty. The deeming of an application of conditions was only one of the possible solutions recommended for tardiness in the discharge of conditions. I asked why the Government did not pursue the other two rather than adopting the mechanism in the Bill. Like my noble friend Lady Andrews, I am still not clear about the reasons for the extent of the tardiness, if there is tardiness, and why it is happening. The noble Baroness said that this issue does not have the priority that getting permission has, and that therefore it sort of drifts. That seemed to be the import of what she was suggesting. We would like to drill into that a bit further.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. They raised a range of concerns, which may have been satisfied to a greater or lesser extent—or not at all—by the Minister’s response. My noble friend Lord Whitty certainly expressed concern about the draconian nature of the provision. Even given its safeguards, it is a powerful tool which the Government are deploying. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I imagine from what has been said that we will be able to see at least a copy of a draft order, presumably, as part of the consultation response when we come back after the summer. My noble friend Lady Andrews raised important issues around safeguards for heritage. Again, I guess we will have to see the extent to which they are satisfied in practice. My noble friend Lady Donaghy made a powerful point about the well-being of individuals and community cohesion, and whether this provision might disrupt that.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, got an answer to his question on whether this is a case of failure to respond or failure to agree. It is clearly the former, not the latter. Doubtless, he is reassured by that but, again, he stressed the need for evidence. This has been a helpful debate. I will, of course, withdraw the amendment as we are, after all, in the Moses Room, but we will need to reflect on the Minister’s response as I am not sure that it has dealt with all our concerns. I hope that some of those concerns will be alleviated by the process before Report. I cannot guarantee that they will all be alleviated, so we may return to the issue. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare the interest that I did not need to declare in my previous amendment, which is that I am president of the Local Government Association, which supports both these amendments. I see them as complementary to our earlier debate on nationally significant infrastructure projects.
I very much hope that wherever a local authority wants to get on with it and do these things, we should give it every possible encouragement. I hope that these amendments are both acceptable to the Minister but would just add that it is likely that housing associations would play a very significant role in the development corporations. Many local authorities will not themselves be undertaking development on such a scale, and co-operation and partnership with housing associations will also be incredibly important in making the development corporations work.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we are happy to support these amendments. I say only, in relation to the proposal to have one local authority elected member, that the key thing is not so much status on a board and voting rights but the imperative of engaging with the local authority. That is probably behind the amendments, which I am happy to support.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tope for explaining the background to these amendments. As I said in response to my noble friend Lord Jenkin in an earlier debate, it is not that the Government do not support the purpose of what a local development corporation could achieve in terms of what a local authority could get from that.
We believe that what a local development corporation could achieve is possible for local authorities to do already. They already have plan-making and development control powers for their areas and powers to acquire land compulsorily where necessary. Should they wish to focus on particular geographic areas, they can, under their general powers of competence—new powers brought in by this Government—make appropriate arrangements to do so, whether informally through a sub-committee or through a formal structure such as a limited company. For example, Liverpool has set up a mayoral development corporation to drive growth and development in the city without there needing to be any specific primary legislation providing for this. Where local authorities want to work together to secure the development of an area that crosses local authority boundaries, they are able to pool their planning powers so that decisions about that area can be taken in one place.
It is quite a straightforward measure but I feel that, as I have already explained, because the powers are already there for local authorities to act in this way, I have very little more to add to that, really, in responding to the debate.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister just explain again? Are we saying that any powers that could accrue and be put in place for a local development corporation are, in total, otherwise available to a local authority on an individual or a joint basis? Is that what the Minister is saying?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Will the noble Lord clarify what he means by joint?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thought the Minister said it is possible for local authorities to do certain things together with other authorities in terms of planning powers; they could share those. Is that the totality of the powers that a local development corporation could have available, or are there things that are excluded?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I hope that my noble friend, Lord Tope, will forgive me if I have in any way short-changed him in responding to this. I felt that I did not want to go off into great detail, as it seemed quite straightforward. I can also say to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that the answer to his question is yes. They have the powers available and they can work together jointly, as I have described. There is a principle in what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve through this. It is available and possible; they can do it and there is nothing standing in their way to take advantage of the powers that already exist.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If I may ask one further question, would a local development corporation be in a position to hold its own assets, effectively through a corporate structure? Would that be different to how a local authority might hold them?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Does the noble Lord mean to ask whether a local development corporation would have greater powers? Based on the information I have and the answers I have already given, I think the answer to that has to be no. They would not have any additional powers. As I said earlier, the local authorities can set up a limited company. That is available to them; in Liverpool, they have already set up a mayoral development corporation to deliver what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
So just to be clear, they could set up a local development corporation.
Lord Best
I will not prolong the debate late on a Thursday, but I add my support to this amendment and note again that the LGA is keen on it. The major housebuilders have moved up from building 46% of the nation’s housing to building 70%. We are becoming incredibly dependent on a handful of very large housebuilders and we need to get back to having the SMEs, the small and medium-sized housebuilders, getting back into business. Many were wiped out during the credit crunch, the recession, and we need them back again. This is a way of ensuring that they can come back, because what they lack is the opportunity to get their hands on land. This is made easy for them by the use of the custom-build technique and this amendment would help in that process. In Germany, they build something over 40% of all their housing on this basis of land being assembled and housebuilders building sometimes a single house but sometimes several houses on the plots that are made available.
There is a slightly sinister aspect to the bringing back of the SME housebuilders, which is the notion that the smaller housebuilders and those developing smaller sites—smaller housebuilders and smaller sites often go closely together, because the big players do not want to deal with small sites—would not in future have a requirement for the provision of affordable housing attached to the consent. It is a government concept, which has yet to be enshrined in any way but is subject to consultation, that sites with perhaps fewer than 10 homes would not be required to have any affordable housing within the mix. One might think that with 10 homes that does not much matter, but in rural areas nearly all the village schemes for affordable housing for local people are of fewer than 10 homes. Something like 70% of all rural schemes are of fewer than 10 homes. The thought that this will help small housebuilders to do more is misguided.
It is the land, which is the subject of this amendment, which is preventing the small players doing the kind of housebuilding they used to do. They cannot get their hands on sites. It is not that they need to have special concessions and reduce the amount of affordable housing that they build, just as it is not the case that smaller schemes should have the requirements removed from them for sustainable housing for the move towards carbon neutrality by 2016. This amendment seeks to bring back those small and medium-sized housebuilders. Those amendments which seek ways of lowering standards or of removing the requirement for affordability are missing the point. It is this one which would help bring back those housebuilders in such a way that we do not make any sacrifices in terms of quality.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am happy to support this amendment and I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Doubtless, the Government will make reference to their custom-build fund, which was announced a couple of weeks ago. As for our plans for custom build, we support an actual requirement on local authorities to include a higher proportion of small sites in their five-year land supply, in order to boost small and custom build, and to guarantee access to public land for smaller firms and custom builders. As I think I said before, to make sure that we give people the chance to sign up to a waiting list for custom build, co-operative homes or community land, trust projects with local people have been the priority. We are certainly supportive of custom build, but we await with some trepidation the outcome of the Section 106 consultation for smaller sites.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Tope for tabling his amendment. This is, as he suggested, not because I think it is necessary in order to achieve an increase in custom build, but because it provides us with an opportunity to discuss and debate this important matter. This Government very much support custom build and are doing a lot to enable it. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, outlined the way the Opposition propose to approach this issue. However, it is worth noting that, sadly, when they were in government there was no advancement in this area, so we have some ground to make up.
Finding a suitable building plot remains the single biggest barrier holding back thousands of new projects every year. Of course, some councils already provide land for custom build. For example, at Bicester, Cherwell District Council is bringing forward land for up to 1,900 custom-build homes. However, the Government want to do more to help custom builders and support this growing industry. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. This is an important way of encouraging those smaller building firms as well. That is why we announced a further package of measures in the Budget to tackle this problem. Last week, we invited local authorities to apply to become right to build vanguards. Later this year, the Government will consult on creating the new right to build, which will give custom builders the opportunity to buy suitable shovel-ready plots of land.
Local authorities are already required by the National Planning Policy Framework to assess and plan for their housing needs and our planning guidance makes clear that this should include people who want to build their own homes. Those authorities forging ahead on custom build show that they already have the powers they need to support custom building. They can also already recover the costs of sales. Stoke-on-Trent City Council is doing just that and other authorities such as Cherwell, as I indicated, plan to do the same. The Government are keen to continue to consider what we can do to support custom builders but, as I said, I do not feel that this particular amendment is necessary to do that. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that we want to see more local authorities doing more to support custom build.
The other thing is that most noble Lords who contributed to the debates this afternoon are more experienced in the field of housebuilding and planning than I am. However, my father worked in the building trade and I feel very much that, when we talk about custom build, we should be careful to ensure that we paint a picture to people that it is not just the preserve of a small minority or a certain kind of people. Custom build should be available to everybody. With the measures the Government are putting in place, we are firmly on the path to realising that ambition. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tope for giving us this opportunity to discuss this matter, albeit briefly, but I hope he will none the less withdraw his amendment.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, as others have described, this is a hotchpotch of a Bill with important chunks still missing—perhaps more than we thought—and key related consultation processes still running their course or with conclusions yet undisclosed. In infrastructure parlance, the Bill could hardly be called shovel ready. Therefore, we have an intensive job to undertake to evaluate its impact on growth, and to address how it contributes to increasing housing supply and to mitigating the housing crisis that we face in this country. I propose to focus my efforts on Part 3, which relates to planning and land.
The CBI, in its submission to us for today’s debate, identified that the Planning Act 2008 has already helped to boost investor confidence by creating a fast-track approach with clear milestones and decision-making points. That is not to say it cannot be refined and improved in the light of practical experience, which Clauses 17 to 19 purport to do as part of a wider implementation plan following the recent consultation. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, we can support the changes relating to the appointment of an examining authority and the flexibility of two-person panels, although it remains to be seen whether the savings proposed will materialise.
We intend to probe the proposals for a new process of making development consent orders but are in accord with what the Bill is seeking to achieve. We note that a consultation is to be launched on a revised process but not until August of this year, which means that we are unlikely to have the benefit of the Government’s response by the time we conclude Committee or even all stages of the Bill. Perhaps I may ask the Minister why this cannot be expedited.
The provisions in Clause 20 are altogether more concerning. As we have heard, the clause would permit the deemed discharge of a planning condition such that a local planning authority would be unable to take enforcement action or stop development. As the Minister identified, the need to improve the approach to planning conditions was flagged in the Killian Pretty review commissioned by the previous Government and acknowledged then as needing to be addressed. We propose to examine whether the approach in Clause 20 is the best way of doing so.
Certainly, we would view with great caution anything which undermines the role of the local planning authority in the planning process. We have already seen in the Growth and Infrastructure Act opportunities for developers to bypass a designated local planning authority and, on the basis of a government consultation just concluded, for the criteria for designation to be tightened. That same consultation also covered possible changes to affordable housing contributions and the proposal to introduce a new 10-unit threshold for Section 106. Will the Minister tell us when we might expect the Government’s response to this part of the consultation because its implications for an already dire affordable housing situation could be very grim, particularly for rural communities—a point to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred? Is it proposed that this Bill would cover this issue?
Perhaps the Minister might also say when we might expect the Government’s response to the allowable solutions consultation to pave the way for zero-carbon homes and details of how the small builders’ exemption is to work in a way that does not fundamentally undermine the policy. When will we see this legislation?
I acknowledge the briefing from the RTPI, which sets out the position on planning conditions with its usual clarity and focus. It recognises the concerns over the growth and breadth of planning conditions and we would agree with its view that the need for conditions attached to planning consent should be necessary and proportionate, and that they should be discharged safely and expeditiously so that development can proceed quickly.
We are reminded also of the essential role of planning conditions, which is to make an otherwise acceptable planning application acceptable; that is, to support development. We share the view that the widespread use of Clause 20 could undermine local planning authorities’ attempts to approve more marginal applications, thus having the perverse effect of holding back approvals. The extent of the conditions to which the clause could apply is also unclear and there is the fundamental matter of whether it applies to conditions laid down on behalf of statutory consultees. If so, how is it to be assured that such consultees expedite their work?
The RTPI suggests that the intention is to focus on inconsequential and burdensome information requests. Perhaps the Minister would clarify whether that is the position. Where would that leave conditions which focus, say, on the management of construction works, which can play a vital role in ensuring the health and safety of workers and the public? We would be concerned about artificial timescales being applied to the operation of these provisions that do not fairly reflect the resource position of councils, many of which are struggling to maintain their planning departments.
We would also wish to explore the need for protections where it might be the actions or inactions of developers that are frustrating the ability of the local planning authority to respond within a given timeframe. We would prefer these matters to be taken forward by joint working between developers and local planning authorities rather than via another centralising measure.
We hear that the Government's public sector land programme is to be facilitated by enabling existing arm’s-length bodies to transfer land directly to the HCA rather than first to the parent department. We can see the intrinsic merit of this change in reducing bureaucracy and speeding up the release of land for new homes. However, we need to be reassured that with the parent department out of the loop there will be no loss of accountability and transparency in determining what land is to be released for development. The Minister will be aware—she referred to it in her opening speech—of concerns expressed about the designated sites and irreplaceable habitats and the Public Forest Estate being sold off. Similar issues arise in respect of the ability of the HCA, as well as the GLA and mayoral development corporations, to transfer land without the easements, rights and restrictions that they have suspended being revived.
Our briefing note suggests that this is doing no more than replicating the position of those currently purchasing from local authorities and other regeneration bodies. The Minister called it an oversight. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about the extent to which these powers might interfere with the public interest and we will need to probe the boundaries of these proposals and whether specific exemptions would be appropriate. Again, the Minister may have dealt with this by referring to the fact that these impact only on private and not public interests.
Clauses 23 and 24 bring us to another area of considerable controversy. These measures involve the transfer of responsibility for local land charges from local authorities to the Chief Land Registrar, the maintenance of a fully electronic register of land charges and the extension of the powers of the CLR to provide wider property services. These changes have been the subject of a consultation conducted by the Land Registry that closed on 9 March, with some 70-odd pages of government response being delivered just a couple of days ago—which was not the most helpful timing. So far as one can gather from an initial reading of the government response, it is effectively rubber-stamping the original proposals, although the 15-year cut-off for digitalising the charges register is to be removed.
However, wider concerns arise from a parallel BIS consultation—to which there has as yet been no formal government response—that promulgated the creation of a separate Land Registry service delivery company distinct from the office of the Chief Land Registrar, which would remain responsible for policy. Although the consultation sets out several possibilities for ownership and control of the service delivery company, there is a growing suspicion that the agenda is for it to be privatised, and that, the consultation notwithstanding, the Government have already discounted the service remaining in public ownership. Will the Minister categorically confirm today that this is not the case and that it is not proposed to privatise this service?
We have seen no compelling case for the privatisation of a government agency which, as my noble friend said, routinely returns good profits to the Treasury—some £98 million last year—and references to greater flexibilities to operate around pay and recruitment have a familiar ring. The botched sale of the Royal Mail gives us no confidence that the Government will secure value for money on a privatisation.
The matter of corporate structure and ownership is not currently in the Bill, but it inevitably overhangs consideration of the proposal for a central land charges register and the transfer from local authorities, and the fear that it is being fattened up for privatisation. For those reasons, we have called for a proper independently run consultation on the central register proposition. These things are important. The Land Registry plays an essential role in the functioning of the property market. Its principal purpose is to keep a register of title to freehold and leasehold land and charges throughout England and Wales, and to record dealings in such land. Local land charges are the mechanism whereby purchasers can seek information about a property. The integrity, ease and efficiency of these arrangements are of paramount importance and it is against these requirements that propositions for change should be judged.
We are entirely supportive of a programme of continuing improvement of the service offered, including embracing digitalisation, although the Law Society points out that this is not the most pressing issue in the conveyancing world. Despite acknowledged improvements in recent times, there is more to be accomplished in terms of consistency of approach across local authorities, quicker turnaround times and more transparent charging, and we need to examine alternative approaches to achieving this as well as that proposed in the consultation.
Of course, the government proposals are not without risk. Local land charges involve inquiries of local authorities of the land that they hold. The search comes in two parts; entries on the register of local land charges and the answers to queries put to local authorities—form CON29, I think it is called. The Bill would centralise the register but the CON29 inquiries would remain directed at local authorities, so we would need to scrutinise the consequences of this fragmentation, particularly as the two sets of inquiries are invariably made together and the answers to each can be interdependent. Answers to entries on the register might comprise details of conservation areas or listed buildings. Answers on CON29 might include the planning and building control history and whether nearby roads are maintained at public expense.
It is understood that the CON29 facility is non-statutory. Have the Government given any thought to what would happen if hard-pressed local authorities terminated their services? As the LGA points out, centralisation makes it more difficult to integrate advice on planning, highways and other locally regulated services. Moreover, there are likely to be adverse financial implications for councils, which will lose income from land charge fees but still have to deal with local queries and manage data co-ordination.
The Bill before us is incomplete and incoherent. It has some useful provisions that will help speed up infrastructure provision and facilitate the much-needed building of housing. However, it fails to deliver a long-term step-change plan to tackle our housing crisis or to provide a vision for doing so. That will have to await a change of government.
Baroness Kramer
There will be a response to the consultation, but it is not the intention of the Government to provide for that in the Bill or, as far as I know, in any future legislation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If it is not the intention to seek privatisation by this mechanism, can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to seek it in any other legislative arrangement?
Baroness Kramer
I certainly have no knowledge of any other intentions. As I said, there will be a proper response to the consultation. That may be helpful in clarifying any remaining questions for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
I confirm that the Government are committed to England’s public forest estate and national parks remaining secure in public ownership for the people who enjoy them and the businesses that depend on them. The measure that we discussed for the HCA is about transferring surplus land from government agencies. The public forest estate and our national parks are in use; they are therefore not surplus and none will therefore be transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency. This measure does not apply to them.
Queen’s Speech
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Tempted as I am to engage in the tax debate, I think I ought to stick to my prepared script and talk about local authorities.
In last month’s local elections, more than 4,000 individuals were elected in England to serve on some 160 local authorities of one description or another. Many would have been re-elected and some elected to serve for the first time. The democratic process delivered joy for some and despair for others, but for my party it delivered more than 300 more councillors and control of 82 councils. As the largest grouping on the LGA, it now falls to us to provide its chair, Councillor David Sparks, the first Labour councillor to become chair since my noble friend Lord Beecham. I propose to take this opportunity to reflect briefly on the challenges for those councillors—those continuing and those just elected—as they make their declaration of office and see what, if anything, planned for the new Session is designed to help them.
The scene has been very much set by the outgoing chair of the LGA, the Conservative Sir Merrick Cockell, who described councils as being at a tipping point, warning that council services are at breaking point. He has been reported as declaring that the current funding arrangements will not see us through for very much longer and expressed concern about the running down or wholesale closure of services such as libraries, road maintenance, school support schemes and youth clubs. We know that local authority spending on adult social care has already been cut by £1.8 billion since 2009-10, and there are 300,000 care workers on zero-hours contracts. That is before we have to face the big issues referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
As we have debated before, funding for local government overall has been cut by 40% during this Parliament—bigger and earlier cuts than those to any other part of the public sector—but it is the distribution of those cuts that shows the true nature of this Government. Poorer communities have been disproportionately hit, as evidenced by the fact that the 10 most deprived local authority areas lose 10 times the amount of spending power per household compared to the 10 least deprived local authorities. Liverpool gets a 27% reduction in spending power per household, while Surrey and Wokingham get an increase—so much for creating a fairer society.
At a time when we hear the Lib Dem wing of the coalition boasting about how many people they have taken out of income tax by raising the personal allowance, and Eric Pickles asserting that councils have a moral duty not to increase council tax bills, we know that hundreds of thousands of poor people are having big increases in their council tax bills because of the localisation of council tax support—delegating responsibilities but cynically not providing adequate funding. That is just one of the dilemmas confronting elected members: should they charge the poor to help pay for the very poor or should they cut services further? In the mean time, more households are being summonsed for non-payment and more are experiencing the heavy hand of the bailiffs.
If we believe that the impact on the poor is an unfortunate oversight, the plans to withdraw specific funding for local welfare provision—the successor to the discretionary Social Fund—tells us otherwise. Of course, the iniquitous bedroom tax, which we will repeal, is yet further evidence of a Government who neither understand nor care about the misery their measures are inflicting on vulnerable families.
Councillors are on the front line of having to deal with the consequences of one of the coalition's biggest policy failures, touched on by my noble friend Lady Andrews: housing. Despite a plethora of announcements and initiatives, housebuilding has been at its lowest in peacetime since the 1920s, with the number of affordable homes built last year dropping by 26%. The NAO concluded that there was little evidence, for example, that the new homes bonus has yet to make significant changes to local authorities’ behaviour in increasing housing supply.
We know that under the coalition Government, homelessness is up, rough sleeping is up and the number of families with children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has reached a 10-year high. Housing deprivation has ramifications across other council services. Switching government funding from investing in new homes to subsidising housing costs with housing benefit means that central government now spends more than 20 times as much on housing benefit as on building grants to support the provision of new affordable homes—as things stand, a trend that will continue.
We have seen some revival of council house building, generally led by Labour authorities, but overall, as we have heard, we are building fewer than half the new homes needed to fulfil demand, let alone to deal with the backlog. To be fair, it is not a new phenomenon and successive Governments have failed to build at the rate we once did. As a result of all that, more and more people are being locked out of home ownership and are living in the private rented sector. Across England, a quarter of adults under the age of 35 are living in their childhood bedroom. There are now 4 million households in the private rented sector, of which 1.3 million are families with children, and nearly 5 million people on local authority waiting lists. The average cost of rents has gone up by 13% since 2010 and renting is now the most expensive tenure, with renters spending on average 41% of their income on rents. Many face unpredictable rent hikes, while high and unpredictable costs are made worse by the uncertainty and insecurity of short-term tenancies of six to 12 months.
All this is helping to fuel the cost of living crisis and directly impacting on business competitiveness, especially in London. That is why we need to change legislation to make three-year tenancies the default in the market, as the Government’s voluntary approach is inadequate. We would also provide for an upper ceiling on rent increases during the tenancy, but with negotiated market rents as the starting point. There is more. We will stop tenants being hit by rip-off fees from letting agents and regulate residential lettings and managing agents to protect tenants and landlords. We will also introduce a national register of landlords and make it easier for local authorities to introduce licensing in their area, to drive standards up and rogue landlords out.
Nothing in the Government’s programme announced yesterday touches on these issues or acknowledges the problem, and nothing addresses the fundamental problems in the housing market or matches our commitment to build 200,000 homes a year by the end of the next Parliament. There is the commitment to legislate for development of a new garden city at Ebbsfleet and, as far as it goes, that is to be welcomed. However, there is a failure to ensure the provision of affordable housing or other garden city principles in that development, and the number of homes announced is some 5,000 fewer than were originally announced in 2012. The proposed reforms to planning to support small builders are ones that we could support but we will have to examine the detail. However, there is nothing to address the more deep-seated problems with the current planning system. No effective action is proposed to stop developers hoarding land with planning permission and nothing addresses the weakness in the planning system of the duty to co-operate, which is denying some local authorities the right to grow.
An incoming Government in 2015 will not be able to turn back the clock on funding but they could address the fairness in distributing the resources available. Labour councils and others are already meeting the challenges of austerity in many ways and more can be done if we build on the model of city deals throughout local government. It is crucial that we support councils to deliver economic growth in all areas of the country. This means devolving real power from Whitehall to towns and cities so that working together with local businesses—as in the city deals, where it is good that 24 have been agreed to date—they can take responsibility for transport, housing, jobs and skills and economic development. We need to be radical in breaking down the barriers to integrated working, including ending Whitehall’s silo mentality.
The Local Government Innovation Taskforce set up by Ed Miliband is looking at how Labour in local government is already innovating and responding to the challenges that our communities face. In some of the councils where we made gains last month, it is possible to see what is on the agenda. Priorities are being set locally: in Crawley, Labour will require 40% of new housing to be affordable, for example, while the priority for Croydon is to make it a living wage borough. Getting money out of the centre, from Whitehall to the town hall, is essential if we are to rebuild confidence in the power of people working together to create a future that is right for them and their communities. So, from the safety of this unelected House, I say to all those elected councillors: when the euphoria of election fades and the scale of the challenge emerges, keep the faith. Local councillors have a vital role to play for their towns and cities, their communities and, indeed, their country.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 3 and 14, which we have in this group. I can be brief on Amendment 3, because, to all intents and purposes, it seems to cover the same ground as government Amendment 4. Essentially, they require it to be stated in the Bill that types of application which can be directed to the Secretary of State rather than the local planning authority must be for a major development of a kind prescribed in regulations. We are content to accept the Government’s formulation.
Amendments 1 and 14 relate to the designation of a local planning authority. They require that the criteria to be applied in designating and revoking designation of a local planning authority be the subject of a parliamentary process and in particular that both Houses of Parliament be asked to approve the regulations via the affirmative procedure. We debated this in Committee and noted that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had raised concerns over the lack of a parliamentary process. It is clear that the Government have responded, at least to an extent.
Designation is no trivial matter. It represents a considerable shift in process because it removes a democratically elected council’s role of having the first engagement with the planning process. We know that the Government consulted on the thresholds for poor performance and a failing authority; that is, 30% or fewer major applications determined within the statutory period or more than 20% of major decisions overturned on appeal. The consultation has now ended, although we do not yet have sight of the full government response. We have just—hot off the press, I think—received a summary of the consultation responses. These show that less than half of respondents supported the speed and quality approach; that less than half of respondents agreed with assessing major developments within statutory time limits over two years; that only about a quarter expressed support for quality being assessed as the proportion of major decisions being overturned on appeal; and that less than half agreed with the 30%/20% formulation. It seems that there is a long way to go for there to be good levels of buy-in to this approach. What are the Government going to do given this response to the consultation? It is slightly worrying that they are on record as saying that they will not deliver their response until after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
It should be stressed that the amendment seeks a process for the criteria not only for designation but for revocation. The latter was a cause of a lot of concern given that the local planning authority may not handle major applications, other than fairly administrative tasks, once designation has taken place.
We remain concerned about the proposed mechanical process of designation, although it is accepted that agreements, formal and informal, would be taken into account in any process. We were comforted also by the Minister’s words in Committee, where she said that,
“I hope I made it clear that if a local authority is going to be designated, it will be able to put forward the sort of points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have suggested as a reason for why their applications have been slower than others”.—[Official Report, 22/1/13; col. 1047.]
That is, there will be an opportunity to make representations. How does the Minister consider this approach might be built into the designation process?
I shall speak later to the government amendments once the Minister has introduced them and to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Whitaker. In the mean time, I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise for missing the fact that this was an aside. I will not take it any further, other than to underline the point that we listen very carefully to what local authorities say about legislation and we always will.
I am also grateful for the general support we have had. I understand that there are still concerns about this designation but we are trying to keep it as simple as we possibly can. In that regard, I will briefly address the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. We will be discussing the criteria in Amendment 10. They may want to intervene again in the next group but I think and hope I can deal with it. It is important to remember the whole purpose of this clause, which is to encourage good and timely decisions from local authorities and to give applicants for major development the choice of a much better service. There is no question here that, where the authority is designated, an applicant cannot still go to them. They are given the choice of being able to go to a local authority or being able to go immediately to the planning inspector. At the moment, they can do that after 13 weeks if an application has not been dealt with, but now they can go right from the outset.
In the context of design, sustainability is hugely important. However, it is not relevant to what we are trying to do here, which is to get the number of appeals against a particular local authority down and the applications dealt with quickly. Local authorities have to take sustainability, design and good development into account. The noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out very clearly what my honourable friend at the other end, Nick Boles, has said. We believe very strongly in that. The national policy framework deals with that as well and makes it very clear. However, these are not tests that we ought to apply as part of assessing the designation. They are not matters that can easily be assessed on the basis of our considerations and the very limited criteria which we are employing.
Were the amendment to be accepted, there would be a very real risk of having a process that is far from transparent. We do not want that: we want it to be as open as it can be and, perhaps, open to judicial review. We wish to avoid that by employing the criteria that will ensure that the assessment process is as fair and transparent as possible. As I say, we will have a chance to consider those further in the next group.
My noble friend Lord True—I actually understood him this time and did not get it wrong—asked whether there would be clarity where the applications were sent to the Secretary of State. Again, we will deal with this later in the Bill where there are relevant amendments, but I assure him that the intention is that it should be open and transparent, with local people having the right to make representations to planning officials. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the amendments and for moving the Government’s amendments. We are happy to accept Amendment 4, with perhaps a more grudging acceptance of Amendments 7 and 19 because we think that a more robust process would be appropriate. At least now we have a parliamentary process, though, so the Government have moved on that and we should thank the Minister for it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that Clause 1 is far from perfect; we would prefer it not be in the Bill and we will debate that later, but these amendments have edged it forward in a more acceptable direction.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that it is entirely appropriate that local authorities should be engaged in this consultation; in a sense, it is their powers that are potentially restricted by this. Something is still unclear to me regarding representations. Again, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord True, that we do not want representations by the back door from people to the Secretary of State, but the opportunity for local authorities to make representations to the Secretary of State before designation takes place is still a grey area, at least to us. In Committee, the noble Baroness seemed to open the door for some iterative approach which is encompassed in performance agreements, formal or informal. I hope that we can get greater clarity on that during our deliberations today.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, basically said in respect of the responses from local authorities, “Well, of course they would say that”, but the value of the consultation is not only the metrics—even though it was me who quoted them—but some of the issues that are raised, and they are very relevant to some of the debates that we are going to have.
We support the approach of my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment, spoken to and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It reminds us that one way to judge quality might be the level of unsuccessful appeals, but that does not really go to the heart of whether a planning authority’s decisions and engagement are focused on the quality of design and the achievement of sustainable development.
It is interesting to look at the consultation responses to Question 5,
“Do you agree that quality should be assessed on the proportion of major decisions that are overturned at appeal … ?”.
Is that the right metric for judging quality? Only 27% supported that while nearly half, 48%, were either opposed to it or had a qualified opposition to it. It is this lack of a qualitative assessment and reliance on the mechanistic approach to designation that is likely to drive down standards. Clearly, ignoring any view from parish or town councils, neighbourhood and business forums, or indeed any relevant representations, may make for clarity of criteria but, I suggest, does not assure us of the right sort of outcomes that we want from the planning process. Having said all that, though, and accepting the Government’s amendments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope
Amendment 2 will have the effect of giving a 12-month period between a local planning authority being identified as performing poorly and the time when it may become designated. In Committee I suggested 18 months, my noble friend Lord Greaves suggested 12 months and we did not need to argue over that. I have settled on 12 months because part of the Government’s argument against the amendment at that time was that 18 months was too long.
There is a slightly different approach towards Clause 1 and designation. The Government have said that they want Clause 1 as a deterrent to local authorities. I prefer to see Clause 1 as an incentive. There is an important difference in thinking: a deterrent is something negative which implies punishment at the end if you do not comply, whereas I see incentive as encouragement, something positive, to seek to improve. That is what the Government seek to achieve as well. They are not out to punish local planning authorities—that has become very clear during the course of the many debates on this clause. They are seeking improvement too.
I suggest that there should be a 12-month period from the time when a local planning authority becomes aware that its performance is poor enough to warrant possible designation. It should then have the time to take the necessary actions itself, if it can, to bring about the necessary improvements, to join with others in a peer-led improvement, on which the Local Government Association—of which I am not a vice-president—has a very good track record and which I know the Government have appreciated on many occasions. It also gives time for the Government and others to assess the direction of travel of that local planning authority. If it is improving at a significant rate, then to designate it at the end of that period would seem to be an unnecessary punishment. We should, rather, stimulate with greater encouragement.
This amendment is brought forward in good faith in the hopes of further helping the Government to achieve their objectives. The Planning Minister, Mr Boles, has said that he hopes that neither he nor any future Government will ever have need to use the provisions in Clause 1 because local planning authorities will have improved their performance and it will be unnecessary. The amendment allows a sufficient and reasonable time period to enable local authorities to bring that about themselves without suffering the punishment of designation.
I hope that when the Minister replies she will spell out how the Government see this as an incentive to improve, not a punishment to be inflicted for poor performance. When we look at the process in more detail we can see how that is being achieved. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in Committee on a similar amendment proposing a period of 18 months. The intention is to give early warning to local authorities, so that they have an opportunity to improve with the help of other local authorities, the LGA, and possibly even the Government.
The thrust of the amendment is entirely reasonable. We suspect that the Government’s response will be that authorities will know in good time. Designation will be based on two years’ data and authorities will know the results of the first of these years. If they are failing the criteria for year 1, the danger signals will be there for the end of year 2. Councils will be able to seek to improve. This does not address the position at the start of the scheme where, before the ink is dry on the legislation, the die will effectively be cast.
At a recent meeting, which was kindly organised with the Planning Minister, it was hinted that there might be some easement in the early period. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there are any such developments. In any event, on an ongoing basis, knowing in year 2 that year 1 criteria have not been met may not give the local planning authority sufficient time to improve. Improvement may in part depend on the nature of any new applications. Tardy dealing with the major development submitted in year 1 may affect the data for year 2. For a small local planning authority, staff sickness and the timescales to recruit new staff are factors which anyway could mean that a local authority has insufficient time to turn things around by the end of year 2.
If the objective is to encourage sustainable improvement in local planning authorities, the rigid application of the criteria could be counterproductive. The noble Lord’s amendment seems to give an opportunity of improving that situation under these arrangements. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that if we do not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister today, he should consider testing the opinion of the House on this proposition.
That leads to our Amendment 15, which requires the serving of a notice of intention to designate but then, crucially, a chance for a local planning authority to make representations as to why designation would be inappropriate—not for an extensive period but for just four weeks in this case. We know that the Government will argue for the importance of transparency and certainty in the process but they should also recognise that a range of factors could affect the timeliness of dealing with applications—difficult development, statutory consultees, extended and iterative community consultation, to name but a few. It might be argued that anyone served with a prospective designation notice is bound to make representations but of course not all will be justified.
In any event, at a recent meeting, we heard from the Planning Minister that although the number of likely local planning authorities to be designated has crept up—I think that he suggested 20—that surely is not too large a group for there to be the opportunity to make representations. We should think of the damage to and the demotivation of a planning team which gets designated through no genuine reasons that it could influence.
Perhaps I may again take the noble Baroness back to our deliberations in Committee when she said:
“There are usually reasons why planning applications are delayed, and one may be that an application will take longer than the normal consultation period. Before an authority is designated, it will be allowed to put that view forward and say that it has not been able to deal with certain applications because it has agreed that the process will take longer, or there may be some other reason. A portcullis will not just come down; discussions and explanations will be possible”.—[Official Report, 22/1/13; col. 1032.]
That seems to be pretty clear and suggests that there should be scope for precisely what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and our Amendment 15 seek. Unfortunately, from all that we have heard so far, it seems as though the portcullis will just come down and that there will be no stay of execution on this.
Baroness Hanham
I thank both noble Lords for these amendments, which, as I have said, open up the discussions on the criteria and the means of designation. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said that with designation we should be incentivising and not punishing. From the outset, I want to make it clear that that is precisely what we are trying to do. While we designate because of a performance, we are trying to ensure that that performance improves. If this is an incentive to do that, that is precisely what we are trying to do.
How the designation process will work is very important. As a matter of course, we are consulting on it. I think that it would be helpful if I begin by giving noble Lords an indication of what people have said and how we intend to respond. The consultation closed on 17 January and, as noble Lords have said, there were 227 responses, many of them from planning authorities. There were inevitably some differences of view and, having looked carefully at the responses, we are in a position to confirm how we plan to move forward on some of the key elements of the proposals. We will of course publish a full response to the consultation in due course, once the primary powers to be implemented have been finalised.
In the light of the consultation we have concluded that the speed and quality of decisions on planning applications are the most appropriate basis for assessing the performance of local planning authorities for the purpose of implementing this clause. The basis refers to the specific thresholds where, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, 20% were lost on appeal and 30% assessed on speed or lack of it—applying, in other words, to authorities that have had 20% or more of their major decisions overturned at appeal, or that have decided 30% or fewer of their major applications within the statutory period.
It bears repeating that these are very low thresholds. The intention behind them is to create a safeguard that encourages—or incentivises—good performance rather than to see a lot of designations. We remain of the view that designations should be a last resort and that these thresholds are in line with that objective. We will keep them under review—that is our starting point and firm intention. Through the amendments that we have made to Clause 1, Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the criteria before they are finalised.
There was considerable support for our proposal to allow extensions of time agreed between the local authority and the developer to be dealt with separately from the performance figures that we currently collect. This was one of the points addressed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie; where over time there are difficulties, as long as there is agreement with the developer for an extension of that time for whatever reason, that will not become part of the decision-making relating to the designation. These performance figures are part of promoting a simpler, more proportionate approach to planning performance agreements. We will reflect this as quickly as possible in the data that we collect. We also intend to proceed with our suggestion that any authorities that fall below the performance thresholds are considered for designation and dedesignation on an annual basis.
In line with this we have been giving particular thought to how we can put in place a cycle of support for authorities that are at risk of designation and have actually been designated. This is important for two reasons. First, by providing early support we very much hope that we can help any authorities that may be struggling to improve sufficiently and so avoid designation. Secondly, for authorities that have been designated we will want to make sure that they can get out of it as quickly as they can and that, if possible, designation can be lifted at the end of a first year.
In the light of the consultation responses, our position is that decisions about dedesignation should be guided primarily by an assessment of what the authority has done to address the reasons for underperformance, and its capacity and capability to deal effectively with major applications. This will mean reviewing at the time of designation what the authority needs to do to reach a satisfactory level of performance and to ensure that it can access whatever help may be required. To provide that support we have been having helpful discussions with the Local Government Association about the way that it can best be provided to those local authorities. We agree with the LGA that this is appropriately done by support from the sector, and that it has a vital role to play in driving improvement in planning services and addressing poor performances where they exist. Giving local government the responsibility to manage its performance is a principle we are committed to and have supported through our funding of the Planning Advisory Service.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify the position at the start of the process? The first round of designation will take place in October this year and as most of the data that will influence that is already in existence, there is little that a local authority can do now, given the time, even if it is extended to June, which might have been the suggested date, to have a sector-led approach to help them to improve. We are almost in March, and the legislation is not yet on the statute book. What the noble Baroness said was helpful going forward, but I do not see that it helps people and local authorities at the start of the process that much. Can she give us any further comfort on that?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have two bits of comfort, if I can voice it like that. First, I think that local authorities that are in the designated zone will be very aware that they are and the Local Government Association is well prepared now to help them. Secondly, the figures that they can see at present may make them feel at risk once they have done that, but they can then approach the Local Government Association for help to see whether they can improve their figures going up to October.
“( ) Before reaching a decision on an application made to him under this section, the Secretary of State must ensure that there has been adequate consultation with the local community.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment is entirely consistent with Amendment 13, which I trust I will be able to support after it has been spoken to by its mover. Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that, when an application is made to the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill, there must, nevertheless, be adequate consultation with the local community. One of the fears arising from Clause 1 is that it facilitates the bypassing of local planning authorities and, along the way, local communities. It is a rerun of a Committee amendment because we considered that the matter was not fully resolved at that stage.
The Minister at that time asserted the intention that all current statutory requirements on local authorities would be transferred to the Planning Inspectorate, including requirements around publicity and consultation. Perhaps the noble Baroness will remind us this afternoon of the process and timing for this. Notwithstanding that, the concern lingers about the presumption that applications dealt with by PINS will largely involve engagement by means of written representations, with possibly a short hearing to allow key parties to put their views, and that this would not necessarily be typical of major applications to a local planning authority. In moving the amendment, I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point.
Lord True
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has effectively summarised in the points made. I do not pretend that the specific wording or format is necessarily correct, but none the less the broad principle enshrined in it, and in what the noble Lord has just said, is important. As this process goes forward there will inevitably be fears that a Government—not this one necessarily—may in time use this process to ensure that it is made easier to secure agreement to major developments against the wishes of the local population. It might be feared that that could be done either by having a process that is conducted through written procedures or by a rather cursory appearance from an inspector for a hearing in the local area. In this process, a great deal also goes on in the pre-planning stage. Good developers are these days very active and are often encouraged by local authorities to meet local populations to discuss and undertake consultation, perhaps in relation to what might be the specific local community benefits that come from the development. All those things are best conducted locally, in the place and community where the development will take place and which will be affected by it.
As I said, I do not intend to try to write law that is prescriptive. My noble friend gave some general reassurances earlier, but in both the pre-planning stage and the period in which a planning application is under consideration, it is absolutely essential that the Government leave no suspicion in the minds of the public about their rights, about which they feel ever stronger. Those of us who have the honour to represent people in local authorities know that the people’s wish to have their voice heard is greater, not less, as time goes by. I hope that we can hear a very strong reaffirmation from my noble friend that if not the specifics of my amendment, certainly the spirit of it will be written into whatever provision the Government might follow up with as they refine secondary legislation, codes of practice and so on, once the legislation becomes law.
The public must not believe, or have any justification to believe, that there is something herein that makes it easier for development to take place in the teeth of what local people believe to be in their interests. That is not nimbyism; there is a balance in these matters. Giving people a chance to have their day in court and to have their voice heard is extremely important in the principle of securing consent to planning developments, which all of us in this House know that this country will need in the decades ahead.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope I can be reassuring on all the aspects that have been raised. We are fully aware of the necessity to ensure that residents and local communities are involved in any planning application. In any planning application process, effective community involvement is essential. It is a priority that we have been pursuing vigorously through the various planning reforms.
In Committee, I tried to be clear that we will ensure, through secondary legislation, that there is no reduction in the rights of communities to become involved where applications are made directly to the Secretary of State. Let me go into that a little further. There will be no dilution of the legislative safeguards to enable communities to become aware of applications made to the Secretary of State, to comment on them and to have their views taken into account; nor will any less weight be given to their views on the planning issues involved.
Indeed, the existing primary legislation will require a planning inspector, when making a decision on such an application, to take all material considerations into account, just as a local planning authority would. The decision would have to be made in accordance with the development plan unless there are any material considerations that indicate otherwise. Again, that is no different from the approach that a local planning authority would have to take. The local authority will, of course, be able to put its own representations to the Planning Inspectorate with regard to the application.
It was a major element of the Localism Bill that there should be pre-planning discussions, and we expect those to take place as well. This is not a fast process from that point of view. You would expect pre-planning discussions to take place before the application was lodged, because otherwise they are not worth having. That aspect will still continue. We are trying to ensure that the important protections in town and national planning policy are taken fully into account, whether the decision is made by a planning inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State or by the local planning authority.
Through secondary legislation, we will ensure that the relevant documents for applications made directly to the Secretary of State are made available at the offices of the local planning authority as well as on the planning inspector’s website. I can also confirm that our intention is that there should be short local hearings. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether hearings and discussions would be held to consider the views of key parties where a case has raised issues that should be considered in public. I hope noble Lords will understand that we are very anxious that local communities are not excluded from this process and that it is as transparent, as it would be were the local planning authority dealing with it.
My noble friend Lord Tope raised the question of the Mayor of London. Schedule 1 allows the Mayor of London to retain his ability to call in any applications of potential strategic importance for the capital where an application is made directly to the Secretary of State. To ensure that the mayor is made aware of any such application as swiftly as possible, the Planning Inspectorate will make an immediate assessment of whether any application it receives falls into this category. If it does, it will notify the mayor’s office without delay and he can then decide whether he needs or wants to call in the application for his own decision. I hope that addresses the point made by my noble friend.
The Town and Country Planning Act makes specific provision for parish councils to be notified of proposals in their area. It was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, neither of whom are in their places today. I reassure them that parish councils will have to be notified of proposals in their area where they have notified the planning authority that they wish to be kept informed. It is voluntary as far as they are concerned.
I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 17 responds to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which I have just discussed, and will make it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to inform parish councils of any applications that affect them, provided that they have asked to be notified of the applications, which seems reasonably fair. Amendment 19 makes a minor consequential change to Schedule 1.
In the light of what I have said, while I understand and sympathise with the intention behind the amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Tope, Lord Shipley and Lord McKenzie, and spoken to very supportively by my noble friend Lord Deben, I do not think that these additional changes are necessary to ensure that effective community involvement is seriously taken into account where applications are made to the Secretary of State. As I have said, we will ensure that secondary legislation requires the same degree of consultation with communities as primary legislation, which sets out the requirements that apply when applications are made to the local planning authority. We will of course ensure that the House has an opportunity to consider the secondary legislation that deals with these matters when the time for that is ripe.
With those assurances, I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and for moving her own amendments. Clearly we support the government amendments and their provisions for the notification of parish councils. I have already indicated my support for the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope. I believe that the Minister has satisfied us about the legislative framework under which the Planning Inspectorate will be required to consult to make residents aware and to ensure that their views are taken into account, whether by primary legislation or by secondary legislation that is to come.
However, nervousness remains over whether the Planning Inspectorate’s approach will involve engaging with the intensity with which a local authority would, and whether its connection with the local community is as intense and engaged as that of a local planning authority. I suppose there is no way of getting greater assurance on this point until we see what happens in practice. The noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord True, made a point about the era that we are in. Local people now have a much greater focus, and the entitlement to engage in these things is important. However, I do not think that we can second-guess what might happen; we will have to see in practice what the level of engagement is.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has been satisfied on the mayor’s position. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report and, under the convention in the Companion, no Member may speak more than once to any amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 9 in support of my noble friend Lord Judd, who so effectively and passionately introduced it. He argues for the inclusion of the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority in those organisations that cannot be designated.
A major concern with this Bill is that it will drive down standards—that, because of the focus on timing in the criteria that are to be adopted, planning authorities will be pushed into making less considered decisions, eschewing quality for speed. That is something that runs through our concerns about this clause. As the CPRE states, exempting those particular planning authorities would be a clear recognition that landscape considerations are paramount and that they need not be distorted by the extra pressures that are coming through, as a result of this clause, on the speed of decision-making and, of course, to avoid contesting more difficult appeals.
My noble friend Lord Judd was fantastically supported by my noble friend Lord Liddle, with his direct experience of national parks. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the fact that my noble friend’s proposal is romantic should not preclude it from being supported. It can be effective and practical, as my noble friend argued, as well as having romanticism. I would have thought that that is what we want from our national parks.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interesting interventions on this interesting amendment, which we discussed in Committee. I am not going to endear myself to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, by saying that my answer now is the same as it was then. My noble friend Lord Deben said that he can see no reason for excluding national parks from designation just because they are national parks; nor can we. That also applies to the Broads Authority. The reason for keeping them included is that they are planning authorities. If they perform wonderfully and at a standard that I think the noble Lord said they would, this registration will not matter to them at all. It would completely leave them out to carry on doing what they are doing so beautifully. There might be authorities which fall into this category only if, as my noble friend Lord Deben suggested, they do not perform to the designated standard. They would then become involved.
It is important that national parks are served by an effective planning service. That applies just as much to them as to any other area. They are asked from time to time to put in major developments—we call them major if they are of 10 houses or more—and it is absolutely essential that there is within those areas a planning authority that understands what it is doing and makes those decisions carefully. There are some national parks that deal with a relatively small number of major applications, but some do not. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, cited figures, some of which would, I think, fall below the major applications category. I understand that the Lake District made decisions on 31 major applications in the past two financial years, while the New Forest dealt with 23 and the Broads Authority with 18. For those authorities, those are not inconsiderable numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked why national parks and the Broads Authority should not be included among others which had not been designated, such as the Mayor of London and the development corporations. However, these are by and large not normal planning authorities. Certainly, the development corporations get involved to deal with only very big or complex proposals and do not deal on a day-to-day basis with some of the smaller ones.
It is true that other national parks deal with fewer major applications, but the two-year assessment period that we have proposed is designed to even out some of the fluctuations. It is also important to remember that these authorities will be able to enter into planning performance agreements or agree an extension of time where there are issues that will take additional time to resolve, which may be germane only to their particular type of application. There should be no worries that if a national park or the Broads Authority were to be designated, that would result in decisions that pay less regard to their special qualities. If, in these circumstances, an application for major development were to be made to the Secretary of State, the decision would have to be in accordance with the same statutory principles that apply to the designated authority. Indeed, I expect that they would also be able to access the help of the Local Government Association.
In other words, there would be the same legal obligation to make decisions in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. The Secretary of State will also be under a statutory duty to have regard to the purposes for which the national park has been designated in making such decisions. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I am enchanted by the fact that the national parks have such good people, but that is not what this is about. If they have really good people they are making really good decisions, so they are not in any jeopardy of being designated.
I will resist the amendment and hope noble Lords will understand that, as recognised planning authorities, neither the national parks authorities nor the Broads Authority should be exempt. The communities and businesses in their areas deserve the same standards of service on planning as the rest of the country. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
“( ) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an independent review into the impact of the operation of this section on local authorities to be undertaken at the end of a three year period from the date that this section comes into force, and shall lay a report before each House of Parliament.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall be brief. If Clause 1 stays in the Bill, and we hope that it does not, then there is a need for an independent review of its impact. I acknowledge at the start that the wording of this amendment could be improved, as it should focus not just on the impact on local authorities but on the effectiveness of the planning system as a whole, including from the perspective of developers. However, if necessary we can tidy this at Third Reading.
Clause 1 introduces a significant change into the planning system. Subject to later deliberations, we could be giving the Bill approval without the Government’s clear and definitive position on some key aspects—certainly, their response to the planning performance consultation, although the Minister gave us some glimpses of where the Government are on that. We accept that there are obviously more general opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, such as the Select Committee, but we assert that this requires an independent review. Will the Minister give us any assurance about what follow-up is planned to the Bill generally, but specifically to Clause 1 and its impact, and whether the Government would support such a review? I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have no difficulty with the suggestion that we should keep the implementation and impact of this measure under review, but that is not something for which we need legislation. We set out in the impact assessment that, as usual, we will undertake a post-legislative review of the provisions in the Bill three to five years after Royal Assent. This reflects the Cabinet Office guidance on post-legislative scrutiny, which requires that three to five years after Royal Assent the department must submit a memorandum to the relevant Commons departmental Select Committee, published as a Command Paper. This will include a preliminary assessment of the effects of the Bill. Furthermore, the data on local planning authority performance will be published on a quarterly basis and an annual basis, in line with our commitment to transparency. This will allow anyone with an interest to see how planning authorities are performing and, together with the decisions about dedesignation, it will form a view of the impact that the measure is having. The noble Lord’s amendment is not necessary, as this is certainly something that will be kept under close scrutiny. Under the circumstances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I anticipated that that was what she might say in response to this amendment. The only thing that I would say about post-legislative scrutiny, which I certainly support as a concept, is that it does not necessarily introduce this independent aspect of the scrutiny. Still, I wanted to get on the record what the Government planned as a follow-up to the Bill, and the Minister has helped us with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment would remove Clause 1 from the Bill. I acknowledge that the Government have moved a little in agreeing to a parliamentary process of designation of a supposed failing authority, but that does not outweigh the overriding concerns that remain about the clause. The right for developers to bypass the local authority planning process when an authority is designated is a profound one. Not only is it a centralist approach, quite contrary to the espoused localism of the Government, but it breaks a major tenet of our planning system that democratically elected local politicians representing their communities are at the heart of the system.
We accept that not all local planning authorities deliver a top-quality service, no more than do central government. Developers who are frustrated by this have a remedy to go to the Secretary of State for non-determination within fixed deadlines. But we should be mindful of the burden placed on the Planning Inspectorate also by this clause, which already includes the work of the abolished Infrastructure Planning Commission, the examination of local plans and the examination of the draft Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedules.
I am mindful too of the awful budgetary position of many local councils facing major cuts in resources and increasing pressure on services. If local authorities need incentives to encourage development, is that not what the business rate retention scheme was meant to be about and the new homes bonus designed to ensure? Notwithstanding that, there is a proposed basis for having parliamentary oversight; the reality is that designation criteria will be rigid, relating to the number of major applications dealt with and the numbers of major decisions overturned on appeal.
The Government seem to intend that the bar will be raised in subsequent years— this was in the consultation document. This process of designation completely overlooks the fact that timeliness of dealing with applications is not just a matter for the local planning authority. It is influenced by a number of factors: the attitude of the developers, the response times of statutory consultees, the outcome of consultation, the bunching of applications. Although formal and informal agreements with developers to extend the timeframe will be reflected in the designation criteria, it seems there will be room for no other considerations to be taken into account. So it seems that there is no process for making meaningful representations.
The Government line is that designation will apply only to very few authorities, that they will know in good time and can do something about it. But from the Minister’s comments at a meeting the other day, it seems that the numbers are already creeping up and we do not know precisely what the starting or follow-on criteria will be. A parliamentary process helps, but we know full well that statutory instruments cannot be amended. Designation will be counterproductive for an authority which has been through a bad patch and has an improvement plan under way. What are the chances of recruiting experienced quality staff when major applications are likely to head off to the Secretary of State?
The Government should be troubled by what they have heard consistently throughout our deliberations. It is also very clear that there is not strong support from all responses to the consultation. The overriding concern is that, if Clause 1 survives, local planning authorities will be more likely to approve applications with which they would generally not be happy, just to meet a deadline. Quality will be sacrificed for speed and communities will have to live with the long-term consequences. This clause needs to go. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I endorse my noble friend’s amendment and refer for the third or fourth time to what used to be available to local authorities in the form of planning development grant to improve and sustain the capacity of planning departments, which now, like every other local government department, have come under severe pressure due to increasing financial constraints. Will the Minister turn her mind to capacity and how the Government can assist, possibly by restoring some form of planning development grant? They need to ensure that the necessary staff are available with the necessary skills in order to facilitate the speedy, but thorough, examination of planning applications, which is what she, the Government and the Opposition very much wish to see.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think my noble friends Lord True and Lord Tope for their encouraging words and for their recognition of the amount of work that has been done in this House—and we should acknowledge the fact that the House has played a very important part in the changes that we have been able to make in this Bill. I understand that there are still real concerns about it, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred again to localism. This is not an issue of localism but of ensuring that local people get a proper planning service and that local developers get a proper result from the applications that they put forward.
This is not a measure that we take lightly. It is something that we are very serious about because we believe it to be both necessary and appropriate. We are very clear—and I want to emphasise this—that planning decisions should continue to be made locally wherever possible but, as I have emphasised throughout our discussions on this clause, we should be prepared to act where standards have fallen to a wholly unacceptable level. Noble Lords will agree that the criteria that they are working to at the moment would constitute being at a wholly unacceptable level. That is no different from the approach that previous Administrations have taken, and I have pointed out how the criteria were adopted by schools, hospitals and other services under previous Governments. We should be prepared to do the same for planning, not least because of the role that it plays in supporting growth as well as being an important community service in its own right.
We listened carefully to the arguments made in Committee, and the amendments that we have brought forward put beyond doubt that this measure can be used only where it is clear that performance is inadequate and that the ability to apply directly to the Secretary of State will be open only to those seeking approval for major development. We have defined that, too. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, the choice of where this application is heard will still be in the hands of the developers; it is their option to go to the Planning Inspectorate if they are not happy having the application heard by a designated council, but they do not have to. They can leave the application and have it heard in the normal way by the council, if that is their choice. I agree, too, that some developers work very closely in particular areas and therefore have a relationship that is wholly proper with their local authorities.
I also indicated that Parliament will have the opportunity to consider again the criteria for designating authorities before they are finalised and before any changes are made to them in future, if they are to be made. By using transparent criteria, with data published on a regular basis, planning authorities will be clear about whether their performance needs to improve to avoid designation, and through the support package that we have been discussing with the LGA we hope and expect that the number of designations in future will be very limited indeed.
Of course, we also anticipate that the mere existence of this measure will encourage timely and well considered decisions by planning authorities and so avoid the need for designations. I do not accept the argument that local authorities will now rush around trying to get planning decisions through in 13 weeks to escape or grind up slightly from the percentage that might hit the criteria. We have made it clear that they do not need to rush; they need to make a very focused effort on plans. If there are reasons why the planning applications cannot go forward in the normal timescale, then the planning agreement signed and agreed between the local authority and the developer will be recognised as the reason why it has taken longer than normal.
For those authorities that are designated, we are clear that we are not removing any powers from them in any way. The Secretary of State is intervening in only a very marginal area.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the planning and development grant. I point out to him, as I am sure he knows, that planning fees have increased by 15%, and there has been an extra contribution to local authorities from that point of view.
I believe that this clause remains a necessary measure, albeit one of last resort. We have put beyond doubt how it may be used, and thought carefully about an approach to assessing performance that is fair, transparent and minimises any risk of perverse outcomes. My noble friends Lord True, Lord Tope, Lord Deben and Lord Judd—well, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is a friend, but not in this instance—have underlined what I have been saying. There is a need for this, however limited the need may be. I ask the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment; if he does not and he presses it to a Division, I ask the House to reject it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussion and thank my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Beecham for their strong support for the amendment.
What surprises me somewhat is the view that people have taken that the clause is now so dramatically different from what it was at Second Reading, when pretty much everyone who spoke in the debate would have preferred to see it out of the Bill. Along the way, I should say that at no stage would I have it said that I had not recognised the important work that the Minister has done on this Bill, and will continue to do.
Let us look at the position. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he thought that the Planning Minister would believe or hope that this provision would not affect anyone at all. At a meeting just the other day that the Minister organised, he said that the number likely to be caught had gone up and that it could be as many as 20. The criteria that are promulgated—we do not yet know what the final criteria will be—have not changed since Second Reading. The 20% and 30% criteria have been consulted on.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that if local authorities are so bad, they deserve what comes their way. It depends how you judge “so bad”. Part of the challenge that we have is that the criteria are not necessarily a fair determinant of poor performance because so many other factors influence the timing of approvals and the planning process. If you look at what has changed since Second Reading when people were so unhappy with this clause, you will see that we have the term “major development” in the clause but, at the start of our consideration of the Bill here, the position was always that major developments would be caught by this and that was very clear from debate in the other place. The criteria that were promulgated at that stage have not changed.
We have a parliamentary process but, frankly, the negative procedure is the weakest parliamentary process you can have. We know full well that it is not really possible to change those regulations once they come into force. We also know that the Government are seeking to tighten those criteria in the future. They have consulted on that, although we do not know the extent to which that tightening will take place. It seems to me that very little has moved on this clause that is positive. I accept that there have been assurances around sector support, but even that was promulgated around a concept at the time when we debated this at Second Reading. From my perspective, very little has changed in practice on this clause since the Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House. I hear what noble Lords on opposite Benches have said. I am sorry that I have not been able to persuade those who have spoken, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(1A) This section only applies in relation to English planning obligations agreed prior to Royal Assent.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the intent of the amendment would be to restrict the application of the provisions relating to modification or discharge of affordable housing requirements to those that were agreed prior to Royal Assent. That amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in Committee, and I am delighted that he has added his name to it today. I should make it clear that this is not an attempt to usurp his role in this; nobody knows the issues better than the noble Lord, but I was not sure whether he would bring it back.
If these provisions concerning renegotiation of Section 106 agreements are not to be removed from the Bill, they must be constrained. We will come on to sunset clauses shortly, but we should note that the Government’s proposition is only one small step from where the Bill now stands. In Committee, we acknowledged the significant contribution that Section 106 agreements have made to this country’s need for affordable housing. We have noted that local authorities have existing powers to renegotiate Section 106 agreements and that many are using these. We remain sceptical about the need for these new powers. However, notwithstanding these concerns, on the basis of the Government’s own logic, there is no need for the rights in the Bill to carry on for ever. If the rationale for Clause 6 is that developers entered into Section 106 affordable housing obligations when economic times were better, is it the Government’s position that things will continue to get worse?
If the clause is to be brought to an end in three years, unless the Government are expecting a further downturn in this period, it should not stand in its current form. When we debated this in Committee, the Government argued that there was continuing uncertainty in the market. That may be the case, but presumably the Minister is not arguing for a risk-free platform for developers. Clause 6 was, we understand, supposed to address the substantial change in market circumstances fuelled by the global financial crisis of 2008. Applicants should not agree to Section 106 agreements that they consider will render their development unviable. The use of viability appraisals in negotiations is becoming increasingly common.
We have added our names to Amendment 28 which, as we have heard, would introduce a sunset clause bringing to an end the provisions relating to the modification of affordable housing obligations after three years. Given that very new affordable housing requirements are unlikely to be able to make successful applications, this would generally mean a practical cut-off point of obligations entered into by about 2014. So far as the Government’s version of a sunset clause is concerned, this does not move us much further than the Bill, which already gives the power to the Secretary of State by order to repeal Sections 106BA and 106BB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government’s version of a sunset clause, while repealing those sections at the end of April 2016, also gives the power to the Secretary of State by order to substitute a later date. In effect, there is no clear end date to these provisions. Therefore, we will look to the Government to explain in detail, when they speak to these provisions, why the firm date of April 2016 is not sufficient. If we are not satisfied, we reserve the right to return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Best
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 22, which was prepared by the Local Government Association. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for introducing this amendment and explaining its purpose and value. My overarching concern is that the intention of Clause 6, which is to see stalled development up and running swiftly, will not materialise without substantial changes to this clause. Indeed, the knowledge that central government may overrule legal agreements between local government and house builders may encourage exactly the wrong response from some elements in the housebuilding industry, and this measure could backfire.
The Clause 6 procedure offers relief for house builders where they have paid too much for a site and now wish to be excused from their obligations to provide affordable housing. Amendment 22 would mean that only agreements already made could be addressed by going down this Clause 6 route. The practice of developers speculatively outbidding others—including housing associations keen to buy a site and fulfil the affordable housing obligations on it—would not be perpetuated into the future. It would no longer be possible for developers to say, “Let us gamble on house prices rising, but if they do not do so, we can go to the Planning Inspectorate and secure a release from our Section 106 agreement”.
In my most charitable moments, I can feel some sympathy for the small builder who is unable to work on a swings-and-roundabouts basis of some highly profitable and some less profitable site purchases and who unwisely paid too much for a site at the height of the boom some four years ago. The bigger house builders are currently doing very well. Persimmon and Bovis have just reported huge increases in profits of more than 50% and more than 60% respectively. Some smaller developers, however, may have been caught out in 2008 or 2009, thinking house prices would rise inexorably when they have been pretty flat outside London and the hot spots. Nevertheless, surely we do not want to encourage continuing speculation on the basis that, from now on, the state will bail out those who bite off more than they can chew. Any developer entering into a Section 106 negotiation at the current time is clearly doing so with their eyes open to the economic realities of the day. These negotiations make use of viability appraisals and the signal must go out to house builders that they can no longer sign agreements in the expectation that they will not really be necessary to honour those agreements because central government’s planning inspectors will set aside their obligations if the developers can show that they will not make a profit of 20% or so.
This amendment draws a line under state intervention in these Section 106 agreements from the date that the Bill becomes an Act. I strongly support it. Alternative amendments for a sunset clause three years hence seem to miss the point. It is now that we want people to get busy and get started on sites that they own and are currently stalled. Every time a local agreement to produce more affordable housing is set aside, households on low incomes waiting for a home are forced to wait longer. We should ensure that this happens on only the rarest occasions. I strongly support an amendment that would stop the perpetuation of the opportunity for developers to renege on agreements that they have signed with local authorities from henceforth.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I should like to explain the purpose and operation of the sun-setting amendment, Amendment 32, in my name in this group. After careful consideration of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee, the amendment we propose sunsets Clause 6 on 30 April 2016 unless an affirmative order is made for it to continue.
Until I heard them speak, I thought that this addressed the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord McKenzie and Lord Tope, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As I made clear in Committee, the clause is targeted at helping development to get under way on sites that are being stalled because of the current economic conditions. We believe it is essential to allow for a review of schemes where this could bring development back into viability. This would deliver more private and affordable homes than would otherwise come forward.
The clause already contains a power for the Secretary of State to switch it off by order, reflecting our underlying thinking that this is about addressing current uncertainties. However, we have listened carefully to the arguments that we should define this more precisely. Arguments have been made that the clause should reflect the current uncertainty in the property market and that we should insert a date when the operation of the clause will cease. We have therefore set the sunset date for 30 April 2016. That is based on the forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility that shows that investment in housing is expected to stabilise in 2016. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said; there is evidence that some of that housing is beginning to move, which is very welcome. This is reinforced by evidence from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which expects house prices to return to pre-recession levels in 2016.
The amendment will send a clear message to local authorities and house builders to review their schemes where affordable housing viability is an issue. None of us can be certain about the future of the property market—forecasts are not guarantees—and therefore we have taken a sensible and pragmatic power to extend this date by order should that prove necessary.
The amendments to Clause 28 will require the order to be made through the affirmative procedure and both Houses will have an opportunity to vote. So there is a commitment for it to come back to this House if necessary. Although the amendment does not limit the time period for any future extension, I fully anticipate that this would be for a limited time justified by prevailing market conditions. In taking this approach, we have again followed the suggestion of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee when it commented on the Bill ahead of Committee. The amendment also includes a separate power to make transitional or transitory provisions related to the sunset of the clause by order.
Turning to the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Best, this would allow only affordable housing obligations in place at the time of Royal Assent to be challenged on the grounds of viability. As I said in Committee, we are still not in a position of stability in the market and, therefore, applying such a limited amendment would not be helpful.
I also provided evidence in Committee from the Office for Budget Responsibility which indicated varied performance across the country. House price growth remains subdued across much of the United Kingdom, and it is widely varied. The recently announced 2.5% house price increase in England was driven by a 5% rise in London and a 3% increase in the south-east. However, in other parts of the country there is a wide variation in house price growth. I said earlier that the forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility shows house price growth stabilising at 4% by 2016-17.
Concerns have been expressed that a developer could agree a Section 106 next year knowing that he could apply to renegotiate it. If the local planning authority has taken account of local economic realities and negotiates a fair and viable agreement, it is likely that there will be no case for reopening the agreement within the short-to-medium term and a developer would not have viability evidence with which to be successful on appeal. The amendments do not make allowance for current market uncertainties. We believe that we need three years for the housing construction market to stabilise. We wish to allow opportunities for scheme viability to be reviewed, even for those which may come forward after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
Amendments 51 and 52 are minor government amendments which make changes to Schedule 2. They seek to change the numbering of an existing amendment to Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. With that explanation for those amendments, and given what I have said about the reasons for the Government’s time-limit on the sunset clause, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his support and for properly and effectively explaining Amendment 22, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his tacit support.
The Government’s response to this is that unless you have certainty in the housing market you must always have the provision currently contained in the Bill. One might accept that argument where there has been particular turmoil in the financial markets—as was occasioned in 2008 when obligations were entered into and the market changed dramatically—but why should there now be this ongoing facility for people who can make a judgment as to what is happening in the market? Yes, there will be some uncertainty—there are always uncertainties in markets—but there is no substantial reason to prolong this opportunity. A cut-off of those things which will have happened by the time this Bill comes into effect is entirely reasonable. In fact, it could be argued that the cut-off should be earlier than that. Indeed, the changes that the Government are making to the regulations generally about affordable obligations go back only to April 2010, so that might be even more restrictive than the amendment allows for.
As to the sunset clause, it cannot be much of a sunset clause if it can be renewed endlessly. There is no certainty as to when its provisions will be brought to an end. I am inclined to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we will look to the Minister to come back with something more definitive on Third Reading. If the Minister is not able to do so, we will look to amend it because this is, quite rightly, open business. We are dealing with new business tonight which has a continuing uncertainty.
As to Amendment 22, we have not heard a convincing reason why we should not press the amendment, and I seek the view of the House.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised an interesting issue, which has been raised at earlier stages, as to why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated. He has also added to his amendment the question of the community infrastructure levy. Bearing in the mind the main purpose of the CIL, I would question whether that would be an appropriate reduction to seek. The CIL is after all intended to provide local authorities with the resources to pay for some of the infrastructure that would be necessary to support the housing requirements. It is true that affordable housing does not attract the CIL, but the rest of the housing development would. If one is going to have a community infrastructure levy, I would be very reluctant to see that negotiated down on the grounds of the developer saying that their scheme is not viable.
We have not had a full explanation of why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated, because there may well be other obligations. I, too, read the sentence in the guidance about the other “off-site” obligations and I was not quite sure what that meant. When I first read it, I thought that it meant off-site affordable housing, but affordable housing is often not immediately on the same site as the rest of the development; it can be on a different site, so I do not think that that is what it means. I would welcome an explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to what is involved. Hitherto, I have wholly supported the idea of renegotiation. Indeed, it has been the main burden of complaint of developers that they have agreed in different circumstances to affordable housing obligations and that it is that which makes their development unviable. That is why there has been, as was referred to earlier, a lot of negotiation going on with local authorities anyway. However, I am not aware of any local authorities which have negotiated reductions in other planning requirements that may have been necessary.
The draft affordable housing requirements guidance states:
“Timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered”.
What does that refer to? I think that I took the guidance off my computer this morning, so it has come just in time. I would be very much against seeking to renegotiate downwards the community infrastructure levy.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we received the draft viability guidance late last night, which was not particularly helpful for discussions that we were going to have this evening. I just put it on record that if, when we have had chance to study the guidance, we found particular issues relating to the Bill, we would reserve the right to pick them up at Third Reading. That should not be precluded given the lateness of the availability of that quite important information.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an important question as to why affordable housing should take all the strain to deal with viability. The amendment does not seem necessarily to preclude an appeal to the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State would do in those circumstances, but that is a drafting point perhaps for another occasion.
Perhaps the Minister might cover in her response the relationship between the Bill and the updated regulations, which I think come into effect tomorrow and deal generally with the right to renegotiate Section 106 obligations, affordable housing and the rest. That would now be done within a three-year period, which I think is the thrust of those regulations. It would be helpful if that could be put in context.
I have been concerned throughout consideration of this Bill that affordable housing is asked to take the strain if a site is not viable. There are broader considerations which should come into play.
(8A) Regulations under subsection (8) shall be in the form of a statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I turn again to the tardiness of the criteria. The noble Baroness may have been able to look at them over lunch; I was dealing with the consultation responses, which arrived on my desk this morning. Having said that, we need to study the guidance and reserve our right to deal with any residual issues on Report. I was not going to move this amendment, but I did not want to leave hanging the two important amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The purpose of Amendment 25 is to say that it should not just be left to guidance; there should be a process and a statutory instrument that deals with viability issues, given its importance. I will be happy to reserve judgment on that once I have had the opportunity to study in detail what was issued to us late last night. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I certainly propose to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful for the offer of a meeting between now and Third Reading to have at least some chance to discuss the draft guidance. I hang on to the point that, as the noble Baroness said, this is an early draft that gives us no further formal opportunity for input. The criteria will be central to the operation of the provisions. Perhaps that is a matter for Third Reading, but I would be very interested in taking up the offer of a session before then on what detail is available. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we need to be a little careful about Report stage rules.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support Amendment 31; indeed, I have added my name to it. Compelling early undertaking is absolutely right when people have had the benefit of a change of Section 106 obligations. Having heard the noble Lord’s reformulation of Amendment 30, we support that as well, since it deals with the point that the Minister raised in Committee.
I understand entirely the thrust of Amendment 35 and what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve by it. I have a slight hesitation about the detail. I am sure it would be a lawyers’ paradise to try to determine whether 50% of the foundations have been laid or whether 50% of a road has been laid, for obvious reasons. Would it be cost, width, depth or whatever? However, that should not preclude an attempt to get something more effective than what is there at the moment, so perhaps that is a task to be done between now and Third Reading.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we should thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his amendments because he raises an issue which is clearly of importance. I particularly commend his practice of giving us an explanatory note with his amendments. Perhaps I may commend that to other noble Lords and I shall take it on board myself.
As my noble friend said, we are dealing here with a complex compulsory purchase system in which specialist practitioners are involved. To some extent, it may be seen as just too difficult to deal with. However, my noble friend makes an important point: if it is one of the components that are holding up growth, it should be addressed. I checked with one of my colleagues, whose knowledge of this is greater than mine, his reaction to the amendment and certainly to advance payments and loss payments. The response was that the amendment does not seem unreasonable. I think that is quite a way from our saying that we are in a position to support these amendments but I look forward to the Minister's reply, particularly on the question of, if not now, when will we be able to look at the system holistically and unravel some of the complexities and inefficiencies that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I join the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for explaining the two areas of compensation code for compulsory purchase that are of concern to practitioners and to claimants and indeed for proposing some remedy. I think his explanations were very clear.
First, as regards Amendment 58, the Government are very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter. I, too, am concerned to hear about the poor practice in making advance payments of compensation. However, it is not clear how the new Section 52B of the Land Compensation Act 1973 would provide the necessary teeth, for want of a better term, to force the acquiring authority to make the payment when it is due.
The provision to allow an advance payment to be made before possession is taken is new but, again, the same issue arises about how to ensure that the payment actually happens. In both cases, the provisions may not be effective without the additional use of judicial review to obtain an order requiring a tardy acquiring authority to pay the necessary amount.
On Amendment 59, the Government note the view that the percentages for loss payments should be reversed, so that occupiers get the lion’s share. This would be a popular change for occupiers and perhaps less so for owners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggests that this change would be cost neutral and I have no doubt that cases can be found where this is so. Some have been set out in the Compulsory Purchase Association’s evidence to the Committee in the other place. There may equally be cases where the amount of compensation would rise. Currently, both the evidence and the views of the acquiring authorities are lacking.
For both of these amendments, the issues raised would require further investigation before they could be taken forward. As I said earlier, it is not clear where the teeth could be found to ensure that advance payments are made in time. This might be a subject for good practice guidance, as we have mentioned in respect of other areas of the Bill. That guidance should come from the sector. I am sure that some authorities do things properly, and if others were told how this was done, the situation may improve. The noble Earl was quite clear that sometimes it is not apparent how this process can be done more effectively and the information is not readily available.
The noble Earl also mentioned the letter on loss payments sent by the Minister. He raised the issue about meetings, to which I shall turn in a moment but, first, I shall speak about loss payments. It is clear that the noble Earl’s proposals will be popular with occupiers but not with investment owners. We have not yet heard the view of acquiring authorities. I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate and understand that, at this time, I cannot commit the Government to taking either of these amendments forward. Even if I could, the argument may quite understandably be made that we need to look at these in more detail, have the necessary investigations and, of course, conduct all consultations, which may not be possible during the passage of the Bill.
The noble Earl suggested, and my noble friend acknowledged the fact, that it would be useful to meet on these amendments and on the particular proposal specifically. Therefore, it would be helpful if we asked our officials to arrange a meeting to discuss the two matters raised and invite the noble Earl and his associates to discuss these matters further. We would welcome such a detailed discussion. Based on those assurances and the offer of a meeting, I hope that the noble Earl will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Tope, in whose name the amendment has been tabled, I wish to move Amendment 60. The amendment is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
The amendment returns us, as I am sure the Minister recognises, to localism. She will remember that when we were debating the Localism Bill, as it then was, two years ago, we made considerable progress in persuading the Government to go for a greater degree of localism than had originally been in that Bill. At the same time, I did not seek to conceal my disappointment that it had not gone further. There is huge scope for increasing the decentralisation of power and decision-making from central government to local areas and local people.
Since then, there have been a number of developments. I start with the remarkable report prepared by my noble friend Lord Heseltine, No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth. I told my noble friend that I did not agree with everything in that report, but I applauded the emphasis which he laid—indeed, in an entire chapter—on the need for achieving greater localism.
That chapter is Chapter 2, Building on our Strengths. I cannot begin to quote the whole of that chapter, and the Committee, I think, would become singularly impatient if I did, but I want to quote just two sentences. Paragraph 2.14 states:
“For the UK to face up to the challenge of increasing international competition, we must reverse the long trend to centralism. Every place is unique. Local leaders are best placed to understand the opportunities and obstacles to growth in their own communities”.
That is highly relevant to the Bill.
In paragraph 2.22, after reciting a considerable number of measures that the Government have taken—they cover two pages of the report—my noble friend goes on to say:
“We need to go further and faster to achieve an essential rebalancing of central and local power and resources, extending not just to cities, but to local areas right across England”.
I thoroughly endorse that. As my noble friend will recognise, that is what the amendment is all about.
Another development is that in December 2011, the Government announced their intention,
“to develop tailored deals with our core cities, devolving powers and supporting projects which will boost growth and jobs for the long term”.
That was widely applauded. It has been followed up vigorously by the relatively small number of cities to which it extends. The question is: why should it stop with the cities? The new city deals recognise that local leaders, rather than Whitehall departments, are best placed to understand the economic opportunities and challenges that they face and that they have a key role to play in shaping incentives and conditions for private sector success.
There is also a case for mainstreaming the devolved powers achieved in the early city deals as part of a general mainstreaming programme making those powers available to all councils to help them to boost growth. The wave 2 cities will receive a core package of devolved powers as part of their deal. I submit that the case for extending that more widely is becoming very strong.
I am told by the Local Government Association, which of course has followed that up with much enthusiasm, and has conducted seminars and conferences to seek the views of its members on it, including a seminar with the Centre for Cities on 19 December last year, that it is now receiving many expressions of interest from other cities, towns—and, indeed, not only single local authorities but groups of local authorities—which would like encouragement to develop similar negotiated deals with central Government to give them the additional powers and resources necessary for them to develop the economy in their area.
Another aspect is that when we were passing the Localism Act, the local enterprise partnerships were still very rudimentary. They had only recently been announced; they did not at that stage cover the whole country; some of them were taking longer than others to get off the ground; and they did not have significant financial resources behind them. Those are partnerships led by employers. I have always been firmly of the view that the most effective encouragement to employment, growth, and all the rest of it comes from employers rather than from central government. The Government can facilitate, encourage and provide a framework but, in the end, it is local authorities, individuals and businesses which can make it happen on the ground.
We have not only the strong recommendations of the report of my noble friend Lord Heseltine; we now have the growing experience of the city deals, which are proving very satisfactory and popular and are producing results, and the now well established local enterprise partnerships set up over the greater part of the country, which are beginning to work well. The Government have recognised that by allocating more finance to them. I very much welcome that.
The missing link is that local authorities, apart from the big cities, do not have the same power to negotiate deals with central government that would allow them to have the same opportunities and encouragement to develop their economies and provide jobs and growth in their areas. They know their areas best. We should be prepared to do that; I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench agree.
We are not seeking by the amendment an immediate commitment for that to happen. Clearly, there needs to be study and further consideration of how, where and when that would best be done. Our amendment would add a new clause to the Localism Act entitled:
“Duty to report on proposals for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.
The first subsection states:
“Within one year of second round of bespoke ‘city deals’ being completed”—
that is very wise, because it gives a chance to assess the experience of city deals without charging ahead too rapidly—
“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the government proposals, policies and timescales for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.
Then the amendment suggests what should be in the report. Subsection (3) states:
“Where the Secretary of State has determined it not appropriate to extend devolutionary powers to all local councils … The report must, in particular, fully set out—
(a) why this has been determined as not appropriate;
(b) include a resolution that sets out how the government intends to review this determination”.
Then the review of the determination must be laid before Parliament within a year.
That is asking the Government to take this forward positively as a further means of spreading the localism—which is the Government’s policy and has been declared to be and has rightly been at the centre of their attitude to local government—but gives them time to ensure that it would really work if extended across the country.
The amendment is reasonable. It builds on what is there already. It reflects the important chapter in my noble friend’s report, No Stone Unturned, and it fits well with the general thrust of the Government’s policy of increasing localism. I hope that my noble friends will feel able to smile on the amendment. I do not say for one moment that the wording is right, but I hope for some encouragement. Then we can return either with a government amendment or something that takes account of what Ministers have said. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which we enthusiastically support. We should thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for moving it so comprehensively in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Too often, we hear the mantra of devolving power but see the reverse: power and decision-making moving to the centre, from schools policy to planning.
We should acknowledge the progress being made on devolving powers to some areas, building on the achievements of multi-area agreements. Following the deal on the first eight cities, the Government are encouraging bids from a further 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what was involved for some in the first tranche. Nottingham City Council would be given powers to create a venture capital fund to invest in high-tech business, start-ups and growth businesses. I think that for Newcastle, Sheffield and Nottingham the deal has been backed by tax increment finance schemes. A control over part of central government’s skills budgets will be given to Sheffield, while Bristol, Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham will join Manchester in creating apprenticeship hubs. That is just a flavour of what has been achieved from those first few city deals.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments. It seems contrary to the whole thrust of the Localism Act that central government should impose its decision on what are absolutely fundamentally local matters, and do so in such a way as effectively to preclude the local council from taking decisions of this kind in consultation with its residents. For example, it would be interesting to know how many extensions are being built under the dispensation given by the Government. I should think that on the whole that would be more likely to engender conflict between neighbours than lead to any significant development of extended housing in urban areas.
In addition to that, we had the recent announcement, which I referred to in the Chamber a few days ago, of the Government’s decision to grant permitted development status to the conversion of office premises into residential premises. This has provoked a good deal of concern up and down the country, not least within a couple of miles of this place. I do not know whether it has succeeded, but I understood that the City of London was endeavouring to negotiate an opt-out, as it were, from this provision. That seems to be a fashionable thing to do these days.
I do not know whether the Minister can tell us what has happened with that, but can she explain why the Government deem it necessary to override local authorities? Councils can, of course, give this permission if an application is made, and indeed if it is refused it may be appealed, but why should the Government take this decision, effectively on behalf of every local authority in the country, and see that it applies willy-nilly? What is the rationale for that? Where is the evidence that it will lead to the satisfactory development everywhere of housing of an adequate standard, particularly affordable housing of an adequate standard? I recognise, of course, that in certain places that could be the outcome, but why should that decision not be made by those responsible for their local community?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, Amendment 71A in this group, which stands in my name, is to all intents and purposes identical to the amendment that he moved and which stands in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It is also identical to the amendment moved in another place by my honourable friend Roberta Blackman-Woods.
The thrust of the amendment is to reverse the current arrangements whereby permitted development is determined at the centre but with local authorities having the right to restrict or extend permitted development rights by an Article 4 direction or a local development order. It would anchor the process of permitted development rights at the local level with full obligations to prepare a draft order for consultation. The Minister will doubtless argue, as was argued in the Commons, that the powers available under Article 4 or a local development order are sufficient to secure that the decision of the centre can be modified in the local context. However, the LGA briefing—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, endorsed this—makes clear that these approaches are heavily bureaucratic, time-consuming and resource-intensive. If the Minister does not accept that case, I would be grateful if she would provide the evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the briefing suggests that these approaches are rarely used. As I say, if this is challenged by the Government, will they supply evidence demonstrating that these approaches are used?
I have also added my name to Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope. This is a narrower amendment and requires that a new or amended development order that grants planning permission for development within the curtilage of a dwelling house should have approval from the local planning authority before being applicable.
My noble friend Lord Beecham has clearly argued the case for supporting the amendment and said why the Government’s position is inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord True, has spoken previously about concerns in his local borough regarding developments in gardens and the challenges that this poses to the local community. Alarm bells were certainly set ringing by the November 2012 technical consultation on extended permitted development rights for home owners and businesses. Its proposals included doubling the size limits for single-storey domestic extensions, although for a limited period. Will the Minister let us know what is happening with that consultation, when we might expect the Government’s response, and whether, in advance of that response, we might at least have an understanding of the direction in which it is travelling?
Amendment 60B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, seeks to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve all local development orders. We agree with this, but could this not also be addressed by secondary legislation? Is primary legislation required to do that?
On Amendment 60C, will the Minister please remind us what happens to the reports that are made under Section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? The amendment seeks to remove the requirement for those reports. What happens to the reports that are made and how do the Government deal with them? Is there any process by which the results of that are reported to Parliament?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was rather a quick ending. I am grateful for this short debate, which I thought might take a bit longer.
The amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, and Amendment 71A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have the admirable aim of giving local authorities the power to decide how to adapt nationally set permitted development rights to their own local circumstances. I am pleased to say that that power is already there. Where local authorities have concerns about the impact of permitted development rights locally, they are able to consult their local communities on removing those rights via Article 4 directions. I know that my noble friend Lord Shipley said that that process is complicated, but it is really up to local authorities how complicated it is and how long it takes. It is in a local authority’s hands; it has to consult for 28 days, but after that it can decide whether to confirm an Article 4 direction. Because there are concerns regarding potential compensation issues, local authorities can, if they give 12 months’ notice that they are going to consult on an Article 4 direction, always manage to avoid compensation requirements.
Where the aim is to extend permitted development rights locally, local development orders provide a quick and simple way to do this. After a slow start, the number of local development orders being put in place across the country is increasing. Local authorities are recognising the benefits of this flexible provision, which can be put in place through a simple and streamlined procedure. More than 30 local development orders have now been put in place in enterprise zones, and local development orders are contributing to growth by helping to speed up everything from small domestic alterations to major industrial development. Rather than being a cumbersome process, as suggested, local development orders work quite well.
Amendments 60B and 60C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Shipley, are intended to make the local development order process even more straightforward. The amendments seek to remove the Secretary of State’s role in the local development order process and remove the requirement for local authorities to report on local development orders, with the aim of reducing burdens further. The Secretary of State only exceptionally exercises his powers to intervene in local development orders. In many cases, local authorities can proceed to adoption within a few days of submitting local development orders to the Secretary of State. However, that does not mean that we should not constantly be seeking to improve and simplify the processes under which development takes place.
Officials have already begun discussions with the Local Government Association with the aim of learning from the experience of local authorities about the best way of using local development orders. That experience is growing rapidly, and it is important to capture it in deciding whether and how local development orders can be improved, including in the ways that my noble friends have suggested. Given my assurance that local development orders are a perfectly reasonable way forward, I hope that my noble friends are willing to withdraw or not move these amendments. I have also given an explanation of how the Article 4 direction plays, or could play, a particularly big role in the control by local authorities.
I turn now to Amendment 71, tabled by my noble friends Lord True and Lord Tope—I am sorry they are unable to be here—and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who has spoken to it. I appreciate the noble Lords’ wish to make sure that local authorities are able to take their particular circumstances into account when considering the operation of national permitted development rights. This is indeed a vital safeguard, because nationally determined rights will of course have different effects in different local areas. As I have already outlined, local authorities have this power now through the use of Article 4 directions, which they can implement themselves. However, I remind noble Lords that every time permitted development rights are removed, local people are deprived of the benefits that they offer and become subject again to the additional work and costs of putting in a planning application.
Extending development rights will reduce the bureaucracy and delays that home owners face when they want to carry out what remain, even with these revised proposals, small extensions. That applies to businesses also. This amendment would deny people those benefits on a much wider scale. It would fundamentally undermine the well established and popular system of permitted development rights, which allows home owners the freedom and flexibility to make the best use of their homes without getting bogged down in red tape. However, I hear noble Lords’ concerns and I am sure that we will return to this issue at a later stage, when perhaps other noble Lords who tabled amendments in the group are here.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the consultation. It ended on 24 December and is being considered at the moment. I hope that we will have some indication of the response in due course. There is no fixed date for the announcement of the response, but I hope, given my explanations, that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I look forward to the Minister’s reply but, on the face of it, these amendments seem entirely sensible.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 63A and 63B in this group. I should start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his knowledgeable exposition on these issues. I was told by one of his colleagues that he is the world expert on these matters, as he has demonstrated.
By way of background, Clauses 13 and 14 mirror the approach taken in so much of the Bill. This issue is largely subject to anecdote, so the Government have taken the opportunity to address it in legislation in an unacceptably tough manner. Let me be clear: we reject the opportunity to use town and village green provisions to thwart development which is unwanted by some. However, we equally reject legislation that would, in large measure, make it difficult to establish such a provision in the future. Our approach is not to seek a deletion of these clauses but to amend them in an attempt to get a better balance.
Amendments 63A and 63B address the issue of the publicity that must be given to a statement under Clause 13. As the noble Lord explained, the statement is that which a landowner can deposit with a registration authority to bring to an end any period during which persons have indulged as of right in lawful sport and pastimes on the land. The knowledge of cessation of use is important because it is the trigger to the two-year window in which a person can seek to register the land as a green. Without that knowledge there is the prospect that the two years will elapse and the chance to register will be lost.
Amendment 63A inserts “must” rather than “may”—an issue that perhaps we do not need to dwell on extensively. However, Amendment 63B requires regulations concerning publicity to be inserted into the Bill. On that basis, we have broadly common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on these amendments. His proposition about the nature of the publicity is more detailed and possibly more appropriate, but we seek to achieve the same thing by our amendments.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I support this group of amendments on a very important issue. I will make a perhaps slightly illegitimate point, because I probably do support the removal of the two clauses, which I consider unnecessary. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I will not be here for the debate on whether the clauses should stand part, so I will say that were I to be here I would support the proposition that they should not.
The amendments in this group are particularly important if the clauses remain—in particular the need to publicise and notify those whose interests could otherwise be removed surreptitiously, without them realising that that had been done. However, it is important to say—as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—that these two clauses typify the Bill in that the number of applications for town and village greens has considerably reduced and is very small compared with the number of planning applications that are approved every year. Therefore, we must challenge considerably whether primary legislation is necessary. It is quite a large sledgehammer to crack a nut that probably does not exist—or, if it does, exists in very small proportions.
Local Government Finance Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hollis, I move Amendment 79B and speak to Amendment 83 in my name. My noble friend asked that I convey her apologies to the Committee. When she tabled her amendments, she believed that they would come up last Thursday. When that sitting was cancelled, they were moved to today when, unfortunately, she is chairing a meeting of her housing association, so she asked that I make that clear and apologise to the Committee.
Amendment 79B is designed to make clear that when a local authority makes a council tax support scheme which takes income into account in determining entitlement to support, that income should include universal credit, not just earnings or other kinds of unearned income. I presume that the Minister will need little persuasion of the merits of such an approach, as her default scheme takes precisely that approach. My understanding is that the default scheme will take account of universal credit income with some deductions relating to income that is to meet housing and childcare costs.
Having read the Explanatory Notes, I wrestled for some time yesterday trying to work out why the default scheme would want to take account of income net of the child cost element of universal credit. Why would you deduct the element designed to meet the costs of children? My noble friend Lady Hollis and I had a debate for some time trying to work out what the Government might be thinking of by this. Having read the draft regulations themselves, I concluded that this was meant to be a reference to the childcare cost element of universal credit, which of course is completely distinct from the child cost element. Having talked to an official—I am very grateful to the Minister that her department gave me access to a member of the Bill team—that is still my understanding. It would be helpful if she could confirm that on the record for the benefit of those reading the report of our debate.
I ploughed through the 155 pages of regulations as best I could with my limited understanding, and on page 105 there is a list of the rates that should apply for the various elements of council tax support under the scheme. When I read them, I panicked slightly because they are not the current rates that apply to council tax benefit. They are constructed in the same way but they are different numbers. Again, my noble friend Lady Hollis and I spent some time trying to work out why that might be and, in the usual way of politicians, ranged through cock-up and conspiracy theories trying to work out what the Government might mean by that by the wonderful old-fashioned Kremlinological means. Was this a way of saving 10% in the scheme itself? Actually, my best answer is that it is probably a mistake and that they are last year’s rates rather than the current year’s rates. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the intention is to use the current year’s rates, which were published this January, rather than those for last year.
We know very little about universal credit and the new system, because in those 155 pages of draft regulations the only substantive reference to universal credit comes in chapter 3 of part 10, which addresses the question of income and capital when there is an award of universal credit. That chapter is only 389 words long, and that includes the title. Of course, it would be hard for it to contain much more because there is a great deal that we do not yet know about universal credit, so I do not blame the department for the fact that it does not have that detail yet, but that is a point to which I shall come back. At least universal credit income will be taken into account. The case for doing that for everybody is compelling. Has the Minister had the opportunity to read the IFS report, Reforming Council Tax Benefit? It is a 148-page report that has an entire chapter on integration with universal credit. The report notes that the universal credit system was intended to,
“simplify the benefit system by reducing the number of different benefits that claimants and administrators must contend with”.
As council tax benefit is,
“the means-tested benefit with the largest number of recipients”,
keeping it outside universal credit,
“and allowing it to vary … undermines this simplification”,
but we are where we are. The report goes on:
“Universal Credit is also intended to rationalise work incentives by replacing a jumble of overlapping means tests with a single one, ensuring that overall effective tax rates cannot rise too high. Again, separate means tests for council tax support could undermine this, with the potential to reintroduce some of the extremely weak work incentives that Universal Credit was supposed to eliminate”.
I shall translate that for simpletons like me. If council tax rebates carry on having a 20% withdrawal rate and if universal credit is not counted as income, the effective marginal tax rate for a basic rate taxpayer could go up to 89.8%. Furthermore, it would mean that,
“income from private pensions, contributory benefits and spousal maintenance would actually make some recipients worse off”—
more money coming in, less money left behind, which is really serious—
“unless these income sources were ignored when calculating council tax rebates, which would be expensive for local authorities”,
as well as complicated. The report continues:
“This arises because income from these sources will reduce Universal Credit entitlement on a pound-for pound basis”.
I apologise for getting to this level of detail, but I am trying to illustrate the consequences of not taking universal credit into account as income.
There is no simple way out of the challenge faced by local authorities. Some authorities will decide that they have to devise their own schemes to avoid having to find the money to pay for the 10% saving by next year. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, gave them some advice during our last sitting, on Monday, saying that local authorities,
“could opt to use the default scheme, but perhaps with some amendment to secure some easy savings. Local authorities could choose to develop a more sophisticated scheme later, but that is a choice that they will have to make … However, if a local authority wants to have a complex scheme, it can have one in later years, and it can go for a simple scheme perhaps based on the default scheme in year one”.—[Official Report, 16/7/12; cols. GC 15-17.]
A simple scheme based on the default scheme of 155 pages of draft regulations would be quite difficult. More complicated still is that any means-tested system is basically a complicated ecosystem.
Although I am teasing the Minister, I do not blame the department at all for having 155 pages of regulations. It is impossible to devise simple means tests that work well; that is why there are 155 pages, and they are based on the regulations for comparable benefits at the moment. If a council were to try to find an easy way forward, the reality is that its most likely step would be, for example, simply cutting 20% off the top of the applicable amount that goes to everyone or the maximum amount, but it may not fully understand the consequences of doing that distributionally across incomes or different types of activity. It is very complicated.
As the IFS notes, it would be simpler for local authorities to have an independent taper from that used for universal credit, but to do so would be worse for effective marginal tax rates. The key question is, “Why should we not leave it up to local authorities to decide how they will individually treat universal credit income?”. The answer is that one of the Government’s main arguments for the upheaval involved in creating universal credit is that it would reduce the very high marginal tax rates faced by some working claimants, so there is a clear risk that council tax rebates will undermine one of the main advantages of universal credit, namely the elimination of those high effective marginal tax rates.
In other words, it is a policy question. Think for a moment about the impact that this could have on the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the DWP Minister. If the Government cannot determine how universal credit income interacts with the taper on the various council tax support systems, it is impossible for central government to determine the effects of changes it makes to its own universal credit systems. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, could make a decision to do something that is more generous and has a particular effect, but when he pulls that lever he will not know what will move in the various parts of the country that have devised their own schemes. That is simply a bad policy outcome given the billions of pounds of public money being spent on universal credit. It is clear that the Committee should agree to this amendment and direct councils to take universal credit income into account.
I turn now briefly to Amendment 83, which would require a local authority to consult not just on the scheme it proposes under the current social security system but, at the appropriate time, on the scheme in the world of universal credit. The reason is very simple. There is a whole series of decisions that a local authority will have to take, even if it sought to devise a scheme that mirrored as closely as possible in the universal credit era that obtains in the current tax credits and benefit system. Simply maintaining the status quo is not possible, as the department has already discovered, because universal credit replaces a range of tax credits and benefits for working-age adults that are currently treated differently for council tax benefit purposes. For example, tax credits count as income, but income support does not, and nor does jobseeker’s allowance or income-based employment and support allowance. In universal credit, if one half of a couple is under state pension age, the whole household is treated as that, as my noble friend Lady Hollis reminded the Committee last week, but that is different from the current situation. Somebody on income support, JSA or income-related ESA is automatically passported on to maximum council tax benefit. That will not be possible in future. If universal credit income is taken into account without making corresponding adjustments to the means test, as the IFS noted:
“It could be impossible even for those with no private income at all to be entitled to maximum rebate”.
In other words, once a local authority has its own scheme in place, when universal credit comes in, it will be impossible, even for those in the current system, to know for sure what will happen to their entitlements unless there is an additional consultation and more information is made available. Indeed, although I had a very helpful conversation with an official earlier, which has moved me along in understanding this, I am not completely clear about what will happen to somebody in the default scheme. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us on the record? The Explanatory Notes to the draft regulations for the default scheme state:
“Applicants with an award of Universal Credit may still receive 100 per cent support under this system”.
“May” is good; “will” would be better. The Explanatory Notes also state that use will be made of income and other assessments. My understanding from the notes and the conversation is that in the default scheme the means test made by the Secretary of State for universal credit purposes will be taken across, certain deductions will be made for housing and childcare allowance and it will then be applied. For simplicity, will the Minister tell the Committee whether, if somebody is on income support, JSA or ESA and is passported on to maximum council tax benefit, when the new system comes in under the default scheme, that person will still get the maximum 100% council tax support, assuming no complicated changes of circumstances or other unknown factors? Simply person for person, will the very poorest still get the most?
This is an issue for all kinds of councils, especially those that do not use the default scheme or that want to make the 10% saving because they may want to use thresholds but they—and certainly the population—will not know what the consequences will be. Local authorities should simply be told that they must consult again under the universal credit regime. It is particularly an issue given, as I understand it—and I think we come back to this on a later amendment—that authorities may not amend their scheme in-year but must determine it some way ahead, when they may not know how universal credit is going to work in practice. Finally, when the Government are consulting they could take the opportunity of combining it with a take-up campaign, if they can afford it, of course. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall start on a somewhat disagreeable note, which is to register our protest about the tardiness of the regulations that we now have before us, to which my noble friend Lady Sherlock referred. They were published on Monday, and there was some challenge to get hard copies so that we could work on them on journeys and when away from screens. It is unacceptable, particularly bearing in mind the point my noble friend made that it was quite possible that this amendment would have been taken earlier before we had seen the regulations or known what was published on that day. At least we have the chance now to get into them before Report. The scope of the regulations is profound indeed, and we should at least have had last weekend to review them in some depth. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sherlock; it is clear that she has done so from the presentation that she just made.
Lord Greaves
I wonder if the noble Lord shares my alarm at the announcement by the noble Baroness that looking at the regulations had made her head hurt, and whether that is something that those of us who have not yet had the chance to look at them have in store.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord raises a point perhaps in jest, but there is a heck of a lot of detail in these regulations that is highly germane to some of the debates that we are going to have. To not have had the chance to review those regulations and plough through them in some depth before we were due to debate them is unfair. Just before I move on, I encourage the Minister to have a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who, in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill, was very good at holding seminars and giving us good notice about the seminar meetings before the regulations saw the light of day. That is the more effective way in which to do it—and this is not just nitpicking. We are engaged in this process to challenge and press amendments, but we want to see what comes out of this system work as well as the Government do. On a number of occasions when we were looking at the Welfare Reform Bill, the input of my noble friends in particular made a difference and was recognised as having done so.
As my noble friend explained, the amendment refers to universal credit being included as income in devising council tax support schemes. It is really to highlight the potential interactions between universal credit and council tax support schemes and why they need to be addressed. The Minister will doubtless tell us that local authorities have to decide themselves, but my noble friend Lady Sherlock stated clearly why that should not be the case and why in this regard at least there should be a mandation on local authorities.
Since the amendment was crafted, we have had the benefit of some draft regulations, to which I refer, including the default scheme. My noble friend referred to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about simple systems. We now know that the default scheme has 155 pages of simplicity. As we on this side maintained in earlier debates, the creation of a fair benefit system is complex; the multiplicity of circumstances that have to be catered for are amply reflected in the draft default scheme. It is a measure of the challenge that local authorities will face. Whether local authorities that cannot carry the full cost of a local scheme start with the default scheme, as the noble Earl suggested that they might, or start from the bottom up, is obviously a matter for them. But the default scheme demonstrates the range of issues that local authorities will have to weigh and the potential scope of the evidence base on which they will need to consult to justify their schemes. Clearly, local authorities could import chunks of default schemes, particularly round the national boundaries of the scheme, into their local scheme. But this hardly makes it a local scheme. The default scheme sets out some information and how it will deal with recipients of universal credit; administratively, as my noble friend said, it will tap into the assessment of applicable amounts, income and capital, compiled for universal credit, and will modify them. The principle is that universal credit is taken into account as income but netted for any childcare and housing cost elements.
Some issues have already come from the draft regulations in the time that my noble friend has been able to spend on them. She has identified the confusion between child costs and childcare costs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
I can confirm that; it might save the noble Lord another six lines of his speech. Childcare costs is correct.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Yes, indeed—but the documentation that we had was confused on that matter, which is why the diligence that my noble friend brought to bear was important. Also there was the issue around the actual rates. Again, I agree with my noble friend that this is not to be overly critical of the team. These are complex matters usually dealt with by DWP officials whose whole life is around benefits. That is what drives them.
So far as housing costs are concerned, this potentially deals with the point that, absent such a change, anyone claiming the housing component of universal credit would see their council tax support significantly reduced or even eliminated.
So far as childcare costs are concerned, the IFS points out that in certain circumstances those previously on housing benefit will see their effective support for childcare costs reduced. I have not had a chance to look at that in depth in the regulations but perhaps the Minister can say whether that is the situation on the basis of the draft scheme that we have.
My noble friend rightly focused on the issue of work incentives and the marginal tax rates. Including universal credit in the default scheme as income would appear to avoid the very high overall withdrawal rates of 90%, higher for unearned income, which could be in excess of 100%. But a withdrawal rate of 81% rather than 90% for effective marginal tax rates is still high.
One way of avoiding that would be to avoid overlapping withdrawal of benefits, in particular for council tax support to be withdrawn by the time that universal credit is withdrawn. Can the Minister say what modelling around this issue, clearly on the basis of current understanding of allowances, income disregards and tapers, has been undertaken for the default scheme? What is the range of effective marginal tax rates that flow from the proposed scheme? Who is affected?
We also clearly support Amendment 83, which is to do with consultation. There is a timing issue around this. It is clear that more detail, possibly the final detail, of universal credit will not be known until October this year. Even then, that may not be the final detail. That is important for local authorities devising their schemes. We know that if local authorities are to hit the timeframe of having a council tax support scheme in place by January next year, they would have to be well under way with their consultation by then. Therefore, if further information comes through around universal credit, particularly given its significance over a number of areas, it must be right that local authorities have to consult again on that.
The Committee will see the difficulty with the timeframe. If local authorities are consulting now and in August, September and maybe October on their current understanding and if things change in October when more detail is known, the practical opportunities for them to consult again will be restricted, but it is important that they do. It brings us to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that we will come to later and that seeks to remove the restriction on revised schemes having to be promulgated by January of the preceding year. Effectively, as I understand it, the current arrangement does not give any scope for in-year adjustment of a scheme when new information comes forward—whether that is in relation to universal credit or anything else.
However, we know for certain that more precise information about universal credit will come through later this year, but at a point in time when most councils will have already started—if not completed—their consultations on the scheme without that extra information. It is important that it is made clear to local authorities that they should consult around the consequences of universal credit when that detail is known. Somehow, in the timetable for these processes, we need to build in for them the scope to do that.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for both those contributions. From the outset, I must say that I am surprised at the criticism that the noble Lord has levied across the Room on the timing of the draft regulations. The statement of intent has been out since May and it is quite indicative of what would happen. The draft regulations are in fact almost identical to those that currently support council tax benefit—there are probably 196 of those. I appreciate that the noble Lord finds the timing of this difficult but while I am sure it is necessary for us to discuss some aspects of those regulations here and to get the principles right, local authorities will already be well under way with what they are producing for their schemes.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Can the noble Baroness then specify the extent to which the default regulations before us actually differ from the current detailed arrangements? Reference was made to the statement of intent—yes, but that is a very broad document and does not in itself set out any detail. It falls far short of the information you would need to devise an effective and important scheme.
Baroness Hanham
But even so, local authorities have been waiting for and expecting these regulations, and they have started off. Also, on consultation, they are now entitled to do less than the 12 weeks—that is in the Bill—so they can curtail or tailor their consultation to different timescales. Moreover, local authorities are far better equipped and far further on than noble Lords opposite are giving them credit for. I have spoken to quite a lot of local authorities, and if they do not already have their scheme in embryo they are all just about there and about to undertake the consultation. While I do not mean any discourtesy to this Committee about the regulations, the most important aspect of this now is that local authorities are getting on with what they are doing and while some may find some difficulties, most are making a good fist of it.
The noble Lord referred to my noble friend Lord Freud. He will appreciate that up until now it has not been entirely in our gift to have discussions since the regulations were published. I do not know the timing for this Bill when we come back but perhaps I can give the noble Lord an undertaking that if it is not considered in the first week, we will make arrangements to have the discussions he has asked for before we get to Report. We may find that helpful and even if there is a day, we will make sure that we do it on that day. I hope that is all right.
I have clarified to the noble Baroness that we were referring to childcare costs; she was quite right to say that. While I am picking up on her questions, before I read my reply, I should say that the universal credit rates are indeed last year’s and will be updated in November, which is in line with the normal uprating procedure in the Department for Work and Pensions for this year.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps I could follow up on two points. I do not think that the Minister dealt with the question of consultation and timing. On a couple of occasions, the expression was used, “We continue to work on the detail of universal credit with the DWP”, and that is fine and we understand. But if when that detail emerges it has consequences for the schemes that local authorities are proposing, how will that fit into the timeframe? They are consulting now, they have to have a scheme in place by January, they have to engage with upper-tier authorities first and have two rounds of consultations. If they have done that on the current understanding of the default scheme as adjusted and of universal credit but the detail changes in a way that might be significant, how can they feed that into their final schemes?
Is it not right that, as proposed, you get a chance every year to change your scheme but you have to have that done by January in the preceding year? As a practical matter, the timing does not seem to fit, does it? If in October you get a raft of new information and presumably there is support for a further round of consultation on that, it will make it impossible to meet those deadlines—or extremely difficult. If authorities are consulting now to try to get the thing done in time, the timeframe becomes pretty impossible, does it not? That was one question—the need to go again on consultation because of new information.
The broader issue about being able to change the scheme in-year is one that we will come on to in a later amendment, but what work has been done by the Government either by the DWP or CLG about the interrelation of tapers on the basis of the information that we have at the moment—the applicable amounts and income amounts in the default scheme and what we know about the components of universal credit? How do those tapers currently correlate? Do we have much of an overlap, if any, between the withdrawal of the council tax support taper before you get to that position on universal credit? What is the crossover? What evidence do the Government have and what work have they done to try to evaluate that? That is also key to effective tax rates and therefore work incentives.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord would expect me to answer his last point, which was about modelling, today. That has largely been done by the DWP, and it would be more effective if I wrote to the noble Lord giving details of that and did not try to muddle my way through today. We ought to do it properly.
On the question of consultation and the scheme that local authorities are working on, I said very clearly that the current council tax benefit scheme is almost transferable into the one that they will have to operate from January. People who are already receiving council tax benefits and those in the pipeline will automatically be put in, so they will not require any more work done on that. As far as consultation is concerned, I have also dealt with this. The consultation does not have to be 12 weeks. Equally, say if you just have one consultation going out for your scheme, that will be back before the 12 weeks are up. Where there is a precepting authority involved, this is going to have to be a joint scheme and one would expect discussions to take place, or to have taken place, before the scheme was put out for consultation. It should be something that goes smoothly and seamlessly between the two.
We are satisfied that the work that has been done, the way this has been translated and transferred, and the amount of information that is available is absolutely sufficient for local authorities to be working up their schemes now.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is after taking account of inflation, so it is a very substantial increase. The 10% saving across the piece in the council tax benefit scheme is making a small contribution to help tackle the deficit.
Localising support for council tax increases financial accountability and helps to make local authorities fully responsible for decisions over council tax levels. They now have a requirement to make sure that that is transparent to people who are claiming it and to people who are helping with it.
Amendment 81 would not only prevent a reduction in funding to local authorities. It could, in fact, lead to an increase in government expenditure because it would require the Secretary of State to provide funds to cover all eligible claimants under a new local scheme, however the scheme had been designed. One of the things that would be quite difficult to work out is how many people are eligible for the benefit if they do not apply for it. The amendment is simply not credible or affordable. The saving scored in the spending review has to be delivered, and local authorities are charged with finding ways to deliver that.
It may be helpful if I tell noble Lords what they already know: local authorities will receive the same amount of money this year to support council tax benefits as they received last year, minus 10%. That will be fixed for seven years until the next business rates reset. Meanwhile, if they can get the number of council tax benefit claims down, if they can get people into employment, if they can make a scheme that goes across the whole of their business front, then from now on they will know how much they will get. It is extremely helpful to them because they can always work within those parameters.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the noble Baroness clarify, with reference to this year and last year, precisely which years we are talking about?
Baroness Hanham
It is 90% each year for seven years, and that will start in 2013-14. It is based on the estimate for 2013-14.
“( ) Where the Secretary of State has agreed to make a payment on account in accordance with paragraph 26 of Schedule 7B, consideration shall also be given to the provision of additional funds for the council tax discount scheme.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I do not propose to detain the Committee long on this amendment, although it is influenced by the discussion we have just had about seven-year fixed resources. It deals with situations where the Secretary of State has agreed that an in-year payment is to be made under the safety net provisions of the business rate protection scheme. Such payments are to be made under regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of State. The amendment requires that a payment on account under the safety net provisions should also be a trigger for consideration of additional funding under the council tax support arrangements. The point is obvious. As we have discussed before, the localisation of council tax support switches risk from central government to local authorities. That requires local authorities to estimate the effect of their local discount schemes, including take-up, on their band D equivalent numbers.
The challenges that that presents to local authorities in budgeting have already been discussed. In most instances, a significant, possibly catastrophic, reduction in the business rate base will have other consequences, which are likely to include employment—or, more likely, unemployment—consequences. Redundancies will place strain on the benefit system and certainly on any local council tax support scheme. Some of those events may be predictable, but some will not. They may be the result of decisions taken continents away. Some councils may be able to take the strain; others may not. All that the amendment would provide is a process which triggers consideration of additional funding being made available in-year to support unpredictable claims on council tax support schemes. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
As the noble Lord said, this amendment is shorter than some others and would expand the scope of the business rate safety net into the council tax support scheme, so that there would effectively be a safety net for benefit, as there is for the business rate. The provisions we have made for the business rate safety net will ensure that no council’s retained rate income falls by more than a set percentage below its baseline funding. Business rates provide a significant revenue stream for local authorities, and unexpected volatility of rates could have a significant impact on an authority’s budget, so it is right that we make that safety net available.
However, revenue from business rates is of a different order of magnitude from the cost of council tax support. In 2010-11, the contribution of business rates to the pool—that is, the net yield after allowances for collection costs—was more than four times the cost of council tax benefit expenditure. During the passage of the Bill, comments have been made about the impact of a large local employer closing down—the noble Lord used that as his example—on business rate revenue and demand for council tax support. There is a distinction between the two. Although there is a clear, direct link between the closure of a business and a reduction in business rate revenue, the impact is likely to be more complex in relation to demand for council tax support. To take one example, employees may not be residents of the borough or the council area; they may come from a much wider area, in which case that will affect other local authorities instead.
Councils have greater control over their council tax support scheme than over business rates, although they are encouraged to make sure that those increase. They will be able to design their scheme to reflect their local circumstances and, particularly, to work with their major precepting authorities to agree an approach to managing risk. Authorities will be able to plan and manage council tax reductions carefully, just as they already do for many other vital local services. Mechanisms are already in place to share the effects of a reduction in council tax collection rates between billing and major precepting authorities. They will enable financial pressures which result from increases in demand for support to be shared. In addition, we are making provision in the Bill to enable billing authorities to arrange with major precepting authorities to vary the amount of precept to be paid in-year to reflect any shortfall in council tax receipts. This could help to protect billing authorities from financial pressure in-year, until they manage to get the matter sorted out.
I hope that with those remarks the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for her reply. Of course, I will withdraw the amendment as we are in Grand Committee. I accept entirely that the arrangements require an approach to managing risk and that, particularly in the early years, they will be new challenges for local authorities. They always have to manage risk, but the particular risks that come with the business rate retention and council tax support schemes are new and additional risks.
The Minister said that local authorities had greater control over their council tax support schemes. I accept that point, but they do not have that in-year control. One point that we will discuss at a later stage is the ability of the local authority to change and revise its council tax rebate scheme. My understanding is that it cannot do that in-year. If it can, I would be interested to know that. Even if it could, that would not necessarily help with the problem that we are trying to focus on here, when you have a catastrophic situation and a closure leads to big reductions in local employment. I accept entirely the point that it would not just be people in a particular locality; big factories, so far as they still exist, are likely to draw in labour from a number of authorities. In Luton about a decade ago when the Vauxhall car plant closed we saw what impact that had on the local economy. It would have had an impact on the council’s finances under these new arrangements. Having said that, I think that there is only so much merit in pressing the case and, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this has been a good debate. We heard a very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Best. We have acknowledged in this Committee, on the Welfare Reform Bill and other committees his principled and powerful leadership on a range of important issues but I am sorry to say that we cannot travel the whole of the journey that he outlined for us today on this particular occasion.
I will come to Amendment 93ZA shortly, but our starting point is different. Although we have supported localism across a whole range of areas, our position on council tax support or council tax benefit is that it should be part of universal credit. If that is not possible, it should be a national scheme. That is the right way to structure it. Therefore, anything that moves us away from that position creates difficulty for us.
If Amendment 82 is carried, it would not only deal with the issue of removing the powers in relation to pensioners, there is a whole range of other issues that it would cover. We should look at the draft regulations, which we now have, which cover things such as temporary absence from the UK, persons treated as not being in GB, persons subject to immigration control and a whole raft of things which if central government do not put down the rules, would be pretty nigh impossible for local authorities to deal with consistently. Whatever improvements there may have been for pensioners, we do not want to diminish their current living standards. We are talking about those on council tax benefit: we are not talking about rich pensioners so far as this is concerned.
Amendment 82A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is simply about consulting. It seems entirely reasonable: one could never really object to a process requiring consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also spoke to Amendment 88B. When I referred to it earlier, I had a slightly different take on it. His particular point is its interrelation with potential council tax referendums and how that timing works. Like the noble Lord, I would be interested to understand the Minister’s response on that. But there is another issue, which we touched on earlier. If you need to fix a local council tax support scheme in-year because you realise that something is going wrong—because you do not have the data right or you have the wrong amounts—what is the process for being able to change that in-year rather than having to wait for a year and change the scheme in January to operate in the subsequent year? That is a problem.
On Amendment 88D, if we are talking about transition provisions between council tax benefit and localised council tax support, there must be a role for the Secretary of State or for those currently responsible for the benefit system. Part of it would be how you would deal with back-dated claims—for example what happens across the dividing line? That cannot just be left to the individual decisions of local authorities. Surely, central government is entitled to have a say in that because it impacts on their bit of the council tax benefit system.
We had a preview of Amendment 93ZA from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on Monday. As we know, the discount is currently set at 25% in legislation, but with a power for the Secretary of State to change the percentage. It is not one of those things currently subject to local discretion. The origins of the policy set out in the helpful note provided by the Lords Library—and endorsed by my noble friend Lady Hollis, who was involved in creating the legislation at the time—explains that council tax consists of two elements: 50% being a property element and 50% a personal element. The personal element assumes two adults resident in a property. In circumstances where only one is present, a 25% discount is given. That is how it is derived.
The noble Lord argues for the setting of the percentage to be devolved to local government, particularly the billing authorities, consistent with the Government’s localism agenda and the provisions to them of powers to settle discounts for empty properties and second homes. Any change from the 25% discount might be argued to undermine the integrity of the council tax system, although in the context of broader things this might not be the most important issue. If the starting integrity of the system is to change, should that be done on an ad hoc basis at local level or does the responsibility rest with the Secretary of State? At local level, there is no opportunity to redistribute on the basis of need the extra revenue that change in the discount would engender.
Noble Lords have, as we have, referred to the IFS report, which analysed the proposition of a reduction of the discount to 17.5% but with pensioners being protected—and seemingly no other vulnerable groups being protected. It is not a proposal: it is simply an example of how it might work on the basis that the change would garner revenues that in total would match the 10% cut that the Government seek to impose. But that is not distributed evenly between local authorities. It would raise, for example, 14% in London and almost as much in the south-east, but only 8.5% in the north-east. On the IFS example, 20% of people in the poorest income decile would lose out. The big losers would be single people and lone parents in work.
So there are issues about going down this path, and those issues would be exacerbated and much less comprehensively addressed if done on an ad hoc basis at individual local authority level. We have not had the opportunity to study the distribution analysis of the noble Lord’s proposition, which we should clearly do before Report.
There may be a case for the Government to address the appropriateness of this relief and if they are to do so, to see how the revenues might be redistributed on the basis of need. But any change to that has to be done at national level. Dealt with at individual local authority level, it could certainly generate inconsistencies and distributional effects that we would not, overall, be comfortable with. I am afraid that on this particular amendment we are not able to follow the noble Lord.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part from all sides in debate on the amendment. I hope that I will be able to provide some reassurance as we go through that all is not quite as terrible as has been put forward.
Before discussing the detail of these amendments, it might be helpful for me to set out the Government’s intentions in relation to regulations. On regulations in general, it is not our intention to prescribe closely the operation of local schemes in relation to working-age claimants. The Government have said that local authorities should have flexibility in relation to their local schemes. That is why very few elements of schemes in relation to working-age claimants are intended to be prescribed and any that are will be largely administrative.
The Government have been clear from the outset that we intend to protect pensioners from any reduction in support as a result of this reform, and support for that has been expressed on both sides of the House. This policy will be given effect through regulations. I confirm that low-income pensioners will be protected.
The default scheme, which we will discuss in detail when we come to group 38, is intended as a legal backstop to ensure that local authorities cannot avoid their duties to bring forward a scheme and so fail to offer any support to those in financial need in their area. That will be prescribed in regulations.
The Government also intend that, in line with wider government policy and existing council tax benefit arrangements, non-EEA nationals who have leave to enter or remain are subject to a prohibition on accessing public funds, and those nationals who are inactive or do not satisfy the habitual residence test will be treated as not being in Great Britain and will not have an entitlement to council tax reduction. We think that this is important to avoid cost pressures on local authorities, and will give effect to it in regulations.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have published statements of intent setting out what we intend to provide in regulations, and have published draft regulations for the default scheme and prescribed requirements, so there can be no doubt as to our plans.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment 82 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe requirements for schemes by regulations under paragraph 2(8) of new Schedule 1A. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may prescribe, in regulations,
“other requirements for schemes”.
As has been referred to many times, the Government have published a detailed statement of intent on regulations. That explains that this power will be used by the Secretary of State to impose requirements on authorities to make provision in their schemes for people of pension credit age—those who are referred to as pensioners—to exclude certain people of limited immigration status from schemes, and to put in place any key administrative requirements for all schemes.
The Government have made it clear that they intend to use prescription to retain, for pensioners, the criteria and allowances currently in place for council tax benefit. The Government have been clear that pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and have had no opportunity to increase their income, should not experience a reduction in support as a result of the introduction of this reform. The Government will achieve protection of pensioners by prescribing a rules-based scheme in regulations. As at present, that will be means-tested, so the amount of support will be based on individual circumstances and changes of circumstance will also be taken into account.
In protecting pensioners and giving consideration to the design of their local scheme, billing authorities will, of course, have choices about how they manage the reduction in funding under the reform. They will be able to choose whether to pass the reduction on to council tax payers, use flexibilities over council tax, or manage the reduction within their budgets.
The Government also intend that, in line with wider government policy and existing council tax benefit arrangements, people from abroad not currently eligible to apply for council tax benefit for the reasons I outlined before will not be able to apply for council tax reductions.
Finally, the Government set out in their statement of intent that they also intend to prescribe for all schemes a small number of administrative regulations and powers currently provided for under social security legislation and which will need to be provided for in future under the regulations we bring forward for council tax support—for example, the requirements for applicants to provide adequate information to local authorities in support of their claims.
The recent publication of draft regulations covering the default scheme and prescribed requirements, including requirements for pensioners, should put beyond doubt the Government’s intention in relation to prescribed requirements and the operation of the default scheme.
I therefore see no benefit in Amendment 82, which would leave low-income pensioners vulnerable to increased council tax bills. Persons currently unable to claim council tax benefit can benefit from local council tax reduction schemes, and mean that local authorities would not be required to put the effective arrangements in place for administering such schemes.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to consultation. Amendment 82A would require the Government to consult on regulations prescribing requirements for schemes.
I recognise the importance of external scrutiny of our plans for the detailed framework by which local authorities will be required to operate their schemes. That is why, on 17 May, the Government published the statements of intent for the key regulations to deliver that policy and further statements of intent on data sharing and fraud on 9 July. They provide an opportunity for us to engage with local authorities on the detail of our plans before draft regulations are brought forward, and provide them with the key information that they need to develop those schemes. That will provide further clarity on the content of the regulations and enable local authorities and other professional groups to scrutinise them while in draft form. It will also make clear how we intend to use the key regulation-making powers in the Bill, while it is subject to consideration in this House.
Given the publication of statements of intent and draft regulations, there is no need for the additional requirement to consult local authorities that Amendment 82A would impose.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, this particular amendment finds me echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the Secretary of State is being required to get involved in minutiae. If one looks at the five regulations in paragraph 3(5), one almost finds that local authorities are being required to photocopy both sides of every piece of paper, put first-class stamps on everything and so on, and this is mollycoddling of the greatest degree. If we are talking about localism, the idea that the Secretary of State can suggest to any local authority that they should do things in this manner tends to assume that it is made up of idiots who cannot run anything. That really is the opposite of localism.
This is little more than a probing amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, but one that goes very much to the heart of localism and the Secretary of State’s tendency to get involved to a completely unnecessary degree.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendments 84 and 87 stand in my name, but I shall first address the issues in Amendment 83ZA, which has just been spoken to. It goes without saying that I support Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
As far as Amendment 83ZA is concerned, we are not enamoured of the Secretary of State having a raft of central powers, but we have to balance this against our concerns about a fragmented system. With the prospect of hundreds of different authorities adopting hundreds of different schemes, all with different criteria, some standardisation of approach has merit. For example, the form and content of documents to be produced raises the question of what distributional analysis should be included and what the requirements should be for a general impact assessment and indeed an equality impact assessment. Having some central guidance on these matters may help to head off problems of potential judicial review for some councils.
Amendments 84 and 87 continue the theme of the default scheme which, as we have discussed, has now been produced in all its glory—all 155 pages of it. Despite its lateness, it has moved us on. It has been difficult in the time available comprehensively to absorb its content and to read across the existing council tax benefit provisions, and we have an outstanding question to the Minister from our earlier amendment about where the default scheme has not been able to replicate existing arrangements. However, given that Amendment 84 is just a probing amendment, I am content to proceed on the basis that any discrepancies or differences are minimal, and that the first part of the amendment has been addressed.
That being so, we are seeking from the Government their view of the protection that their scheme provides to vulnerable people. What, on the basis of 155 pages of regulations, is included in the default scheme for vulnerable people and how does the default scheme address their needs? In this age of austerity, we presume that the Government would not sanction any scheme that provides superfluous or excessive relief, so we are simply asking them to spell out how they are providing for vulnerable people in the default scheme and which aspects of the scheme provide particular support for which groups. Given that the Government have made judgments about who should be protected by the default scheme, they should have a view about who should be considered under local schemes. The amendment does not require any local authority to follow the Government’s view on this; they can exercise their own judgments, but should be able to do so armed with the knowledge of why the Government have made certain decisions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, perhaps I may crave the Committee’s indulgence and go back to an issue that we discussed at our last meeting. Although this is not technically about the default scheme, it is about vulnerable people and about carers. The Minister very kindly wrote to my noble friend Lord McKenzie and copied the letter to other members of the Committee. It responded to our concerns about carers not being mentioned as a vulnerable group. In her letter, the Minister said,
“The guidance we have published on the statutory requirements in relation to vulnerable groups does not refer to carers”—
as we said—
“but as was made clear in the discussion, it is not intended to be exhaustive”.
The guidance talks about disabled people, duties under the Child Poverty Act, homelessness, and even the Armed Forces covenant. When local authorities have ticked all those boxes, and when they have addressed the requirement on them to take account of work incentives, very few local authorities will say, “Hang on, let's see if there are any other vulnerable groups that we should be thinking about”, and turn their attention to carers.
I ask the Minister to take this away, not to put it on the face of the Bill, but perhaps the department would consider reissuing the guidance so that it specifically mentions carers among vulnerable groups. I have not heard the Minister say anything to suggest that she does not think that carers are a vulnerable group. So if the Government accept that carers are a vulnerable group, and as we do not have concern for any other vulnerable groups that are not mentioned in the guidance, is there any reason why they could not be put in the guidance? My fear is that, yet again, carers will be overlooked.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
The whole Committee will be grateful to my noble friend for her careful answer to the points made in the debate. We shall want to read carefully what she has said and, if so advised, to return to the matter later. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say that I am about to withdraw myself. I have to make preparations to get off to celebrate my diamond wedding in Scotland. I hope that I may be forgiven. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—I would not wish to keep him from his celebration and we pass on our best wishes to him for it—I note that, again, the Government refuse to give any practical help to local authorities on the issue of vulnerable people. We know why that is, as they are leaving local authorities high and dry to make those difficult decisions, not wanting to take any responsibility themselves. That will be a continuing theme of the Bill, and I am sure that we will return to it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I cannot let that go unchallenged. It has been clear from the outset of the discussion on the Bill that the intention is to give local authorities the maximum flexibility to decide how they want the scheme to operate. The noble Lord may not agree with that, but it is not the intention of the Government not to give support but to ensure that local authorities manage their own affairs.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
In a sense, the noble Baroness is saying that the Government are imposing on local authorities the judgment on whether to help vulnerable people at the expense of slightly less vulnerable people. If the Government are imposing such decisions, they should take responsibility for making those judgments.
“(4) Both billing and precepting authorities shall be entitled to hold such balances to deal with shortfalls in council tax receipts as agreed with their auditors.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, perhaps I can move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh. He did not provide me with a script, but I believe I understand what was in his mind when he crafted the amendment. This is a relatively straightforward issue. It requires that:
“Both billing and precepting authorities shall be entitled to hold such balances to deal with shortfalls in council tax receipts as agreed with their auditors”.
We have touched on this at various stages of our discussions. We have touched on the fact that both the business rate retention scheme and the council tax support scheme will make budgeting that more complex for local authorities. They will be challenged with new issues around the level of balances and what reserves should be held against them for contingencies that might flow. I imagine that if the provisions are agreed with auditors, that would be validation enough, but in moving the amendment I am interested to hear what the Minister puts on the record in this regard. This issue is important to a number of local authorities.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment on behalf of his noble friend. I agree with him that local authorities will want to consider what sensible provisions they should make to manage their finances generally. Frankly, I do not think that the amendment is needed.
Individual authorities already decide what reserves they are going to budget for, and would be free to decide to hold reserves for the purpose of easing council tax benefit if they needed to. Determining the level and use of reserves is a matter for individual authorities, as part of their overall financial and risk management. There is no prescriptive national guidance on the minimum or maximum level of reserves, either as an absolute amount or as a percentage of the budget.
Reserves can help authorities to respond to unexpected situations, and give them room for manoeuvre on their finances, including helping to protect key front-line services. All authorities should keep sufficient reserves so that they have a financial cushion to meet sudden unexpected costs. What is sufficient should be determined by the authority themselves, in relation to their overall budgets and their individual circumstances.
Amendment 88C also requires the auditor to agree the level of reserves. I do not think that that would be appropriate, because that could prejudice the independence of the auditor, who might wish to comment later on the level of reserves. I do not think that the auditor could give a blessing to a certain amount of reserves before any auditing was done.
The overall level of reserves is agreed by the authority at the start of the financial year. Under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, the chief financial officer is required to make a formal report to the authority on the budget and adequacy of the reserves. Although I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue, I do not think that the amendment is needed, or that the proposal that the auditor should agree the reserves would work legally.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I did not—although I can see that one could—read the amendment to say that the auditor had to be part of the process of agreeing reserves rather than taking a view in due course, as it would on the totality of the accounts, but the point is well made.
The amendment may, in part, have been prompted by concerns—real or imagined—that the Secretary of State has his eye on local authority balances and on putting down a marker that, in the new era into which local authorities are moving, it should be recognised that appropriate balances should be permitted, not challenged and viewed by the Secretary of State as a means of chopping back other resources. However, what the noble Baroness said has been helpful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Report on effects of provisions
At a date no later than three years from the implementation of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare a report detailing the effect of these provisions on—(a) the number of people receiving or eligible to receive council tax support in each local authority, including the number in employment, the number actively seeking work, and the number of pensionable age;(b) the costs incurred by each authority in running the scheme, including the cost of appeals; and(c) the impact on work incentives.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 92 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Sherlock and speak to Amendment 93ZB, which effectively covers the same ground. Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State to report on the effect of these provisions within three years of their implementation and specifically to report on three aspects of these changes.
First, it would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on take-up of council tax support in each local authority, detailing eligibility and take-up, including figures for those who are in work, actively seeking work and pensioners. This information will be crucial in enabling an assessment of what impact the changes have had on eligibility, support by different groups and, crucially, take-up. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, reminded us so powerfully earlier, there is a potential disincentive for local authorities to encourage higher take-up because they would have to absorb the cost of any increased take-up as the funding will no longer be demand-related and will come not from DEL but AME.
The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to report on two other aspects: the costs incurred by each authority in running the scheme and the impact on work incentives. That is simply good governance. We are having robust debates here about the likely effect of these changes. We fear these changes could damage incentives; while the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has opined that they would have the opposite effect by incentivising local authorities to encourage their residents into high-paying jobs. Some noble Lords believe take-up may fall; others that it may rise and be expensive. Either way, the Government are confident that that will not be a problem.
This report will answer three questions and many more. We can simply reconvene in 2015-16, if we are still here, and find out who is right. More importantly, policy-makers of the future will learn lessons and, if necessary, a future Government can make changes to legislation in this area. The Minister may say that this is unnecessary, that the Secretary of State will collect this information anyway, but we have heard from my noble friend Lady Lister today that even the DWP proposes to stop collecting take-up statistics. Certainly, we want to return to press that issue. I submit that the need is clear. Government should gather this information and Parliament has the right to see it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. It will not be entirely a surprise when I say that I support my noble friend Lord Deben’s general emphasis on this issue.
Paragraph 7 of new Schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 is inserted by Schedule 4 to the Bill and enables the Secretary of State to require authorities to supply specified information to the Secretary of State. The Government, in their equality impact assessment of this reform, made it clear that the powers could be used to collect information to support future evaluation of the policy.
Council tax support will become part of the council tax system that we have been through today. The Government already collect key data for the council tax system, including data on exemptions and discounts. We are currently working with other government departments and local government to determine the necessary data that will be required in future as part of the council tax system, or through other mechanisms, to monitor the policy and how best to collect this. To ensure proper scrutiny, new requests for data from local government will need approval by the single data list gateway group, which has been established by this Government to consider and challenge new data requirements from local government.
Amendment 92 requires a report on the impact of work incentives. To do so would place another administrative burden on local authorities. The purpose of the policy is not to make local authorities report to the Government on work incentives; rather it is to encourage local authorities to get people back into work. It will not be in the interest of local authorities to lock their residents into poverty and low aspirations. They will want to design schemes which support claimants into work, and the department has issued guidance helping local authorities to understand the importance of work incentives and how they can design schemes which support the objectives of universal credit.
The second part of Amendment 93ZB would require the Government to adjust funding allocations to reflect any changes in the number of eligible claimants. The amendment does not make it clear whether this is funding from within the council tax support scheme or additional funding from outside. Funding for council tax support will be included as a fixed allocation within the business rate retention scheme. Councils will have the responsibility and flexibility to deal with these on a local level. Councils, in designing their schemes, will need to consider the risk of variation in demand. In relation to in-year fluctuations in demand, mechanisms are already in place to enable billing authorities and major precepting authorities to enter into arrangements. This will enable financial pressures as a result of unexpected increases to be shared.
The Government do not think that it will be necessary or helpful for local authorities to be asked to provide that a report be published in Parliament. There are transparency requirements on local authorities to make sure that all of what they do is understood and made clear and, where possible, put on the internet. We think that that will be sufficient to ensure that there is wide knowledge of what each local authority is doing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support. The noble Lord made the point that two years may be more appropriate than three, and I think that we would happily take that on board when we approach the subsequent stage.
My noble friend Lady Lister dealt with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about the significance of the change that we have here. About 5 million people are in receipt of council tax benefit at the moment, and those people—the most disadvantaged and poorest in our community—are the ones who are going to be subject to this new system. Our intention is not to limit the localising process, although we do not like it, this is simply about the Government understanding the consequences of their policies. From what the Minister said, it seems that there are potential requirements on authorities to provide a range of information anyway, so that provision does not seem to be limiting the Government’s thirst for localism. The impact on work incentives is crucial. It is a major plank of the Government’s policy, not only on the business rate retention scheme but to the council tax support scheme. The whole thing is designed and driven by trying to get more people into work. There are issues about where the jobs are going to come from and how that is going to work, but it must be of interest to the Government to know how that part of its policy will work in practice. I cannot see why it would not be.
We will return to this issue on Report. It is important that there is a transparent process back to Parliament. It does not negate what local authorities will do or limit the powers or scope that they have under the Bill. All it asks for is a report by the Secretary of State back to Parliament to evaluate how it is working in practice and whether it is delivering what the Government believe that it will—and what we, for our part, are sceptical about. Given that and given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 93ZBA is a narrow and technical amendment. It relates to long-term empty dwellings and the power given to local authorities to terminate entitlement to discounts and increase council tax by up to 50% of the applicable rate, so councils will have the power to charge up to 150% of council tax provided that the property has been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for more than two years. It is accepted that the term “substantially unfurnished” is not specifically defined anywhere in legislation and has been the subject of case law. Clause 11(9) appears to treat property as unoccupied despite short interim periods when it was occupied. However, such intermittent occupancy might imply that the property was not substantially unfurnished during that period, so it would cease to be a long-term empty property. That would seem to negate the purpose of Clause 11(9), so the amendment seeks to ensure that any concomitant period when the property was not substantially unfurnished is equally ignored. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this short amendment specifies that in determining whether a property has been unfurnished for any period of six weeks or less during which it was furnished should also be disregarded. Clause 11 sets out that a dwelling is classified as long-term empty and subject to a premium if it has been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for a continuous period of two years. Any period of six weeks or less during which the dwelling was occupied is disregarded. The amendment would add a second consideration of time to the application of the period by requiring a billing authority to take into account any periods during which the dwelling was furnished. This would add an unnecessary level of complication to the administration of the empty homes premium. It would potentially require billing authorities to monitor the interplay of periods of occupation and furnishing of a dwelling. Clear criteria for the scheme and ease of administration are highly desirable for billing authorities and, perhaps more importantly, council tax payers to know where they are.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I do not want to prolong this but I am not sure whether we are at cross purposes. The amendment was meant to be helpful and quite narrow. If the legislation is saying that despite the fact that the dwelling is occupied, it is treated for certain periods as being unoccupied—it is understood why that would be the case—the problem with that is that when it is actually occupied, is there not a greater risk that it will be treated as being not substantially unfurnished, because it would need to be furnished for somebody to occupy it? All this amendment tries to do is to ask: when you disregard that period of occupation, why not also assume it to be “substantially unfurnished”? Unless you do that, in a sense you negate in large measure the effect of subsection (9). It may be that the Minister wishes to take it away but that was the only purpose of this amendment. It is not meant to otherwise complicate it or create other difficulties, or to disrupt and undermine the localism agenda. It is a very narrow point.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that and look forward to the reply in due course. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this minor government amendment allows the Secretary of State to commence the provisions of Clause 12 by order, rather than having them come into force automatically on 1 April 2013. The Government remain committed to the principle that mortgagees in possession of a dwelling should be liable for council tax but are proposing this amendment for practical reasons. As stated in their response to consultation on this reform, the Government do not intend to implement this provision until discussions have taken place with the mortgage lenders sector, leading to satisfactory and workable administrative arrangements. These discussions are being pursued and the Government intend to implement the provisions as soon as practical. However, I move this amendment and hope it is accepted.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we clearly do not disagree with this amendment but I note a certain timing discretion given in respect of these circumstances that is not allowed to local authorities for the big challenges that they have, but that is a debate for another time.