Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) and (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
Lord Shipley Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I must first apologise to the Minister for missing the first minute of his speech; I hope it was not full of fresh information that I ought to be aware of. As far as I am concerned, and I think the same goes for my noble friend, there is no particular objection to these regulations. It is interesting, however, to hear about the proposed pilot schemes—I suspect that the good citizens of Surrey will be waiting with bated breath to see whether they will be included in the pilot scheme. Although the Minister cannot indicate the outcome of ongoing discussions with other authorities, perhaps he can tell us when a decision will be made.
Part of the problem faced by authorities, and by the Government themselves, is the delay in this revaluation—I think it should have occurred in 2015. Will the Minister tell us whether it will be possible to decide on and then stick to a regular period for revaluation? The longer the gap, the greater the impact appears to be, and that is certainly part of the current reaction.
There is also a real problem, not dealt with in these regulations, about the appeals process. The Local Government Association—I remind the House, such as it is, of my local government interests—points out that there have been more than a million appeals from business rate properties since 2010, and 200,000 of those appeals are still waiting to be decided. This has led councils to hold back £2.5 billion in reserves in case they have to meet their 50% share in respect of refunds; 50% is payable by councils and 50% is payable by the Government. The system is clearly creaking around what it is capable of resolving in relation to the appeals system. I wonder whether the Government will look at that system and at the funding that is required to be put in place when there are appeals.
Finally, one of the reactions to the announcement was to point out the strange apparent outcome that very large operations such as Amazon and Sports Direct, with their massive out-of-town sheds, get a very low business rate, whereas the shop on the corner and the pub in the middle of town pay a disproportionately high amount relative to those very large concerns. Are the Government looking at that anomaly and, if so, when will it be resolved? It certainly concerns anybody living in a city area, where business rates income will now be crucial to the services that the authorities can provide, and yet these large institutions, mainly outside urban areas, will both compete with those in our towns and cities and themselves have very little to pay by way of business rates. That anomaly should surely be addressed.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I too am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The context of these regulations is one in which there is an increasing lack of confidence in the sustainability of local government finance over coming years. There are several reasons for this, which have been well documented. It is partly about rising demand and it is partly about reducing income. However, there is no doubt that there is simply not enough money to do all the things that local government needs to do.
Despite declining income, however, business rates have not been reducing, and they are very high in international terms. They have become a major burden for many small businesses, even for some that will gain from the revaluation. The situation has become acute for many high street shops and pubs. Competition through internet purchasing from retailers not in shopping centres and that have lower business rate bills has become a major source of concern.
It is true, as the Government keep reminding us, that this revaluation is revenue neutral overall. Three-quarters of businesses will not pay more, but that means, of course, that one-quarter will pay quite a bit more. I acknowledge that there are transitional arrangements, and they will be important. However, the revaluation still means very high bills for some.
Thirty years ago we had a local domestic tax, a local business rate and a revenue support grant from central government, with a strong needs-based element in the government grant regime. I think that that needs assessment is now in danger of being inadequately reflected in government thinking. Much has changed since business rates were nationalised almost 30 years ago, but one thing has not: need remains in both absolute and relative terms and should be fully reflected in government policy.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a comparison that I think is important, between corporation tax and business rates. Business rates raise around £28 billion and corporation tax raises around £43 billion. Corporation tax is being reduced to 17% by 2020, and in my view that reduction cannot be justified when business rates could be made lower. I think that the continued reduction of corporation tax helps bigger businesses—those that pay corporation tax—but smaller businesses that pay business rates but not corporation tax are getting a higher bill as a consequence of their exposure to business rates.
Building More Homes (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Shipley Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I first declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I strongly welcome the report of the Economic Affairs Select Committee on building more homes. I detect from the contributions this afternoon a broad unity of view about many of the conclusions of the report, which is welcome.
There have been—and reference has been made to this this afternoon—a very large number of reports in recent times on housing supply and the rising cost of housing, both for purchase and for rent. I think that the Government have finally realised that the time for just talking about the housing crisis must come to an end. I think that the White Paper is moving us in the right direction, although it does not itself provide a solution to a number of the problems affecting the housing sector. I will return to this later.
I pay tribute to the committee, of which I used to be a member, for its evidence-based report. It has been several months since it was published, but at least it has enabled the new ministerial team to examine why existing government housing policy has been failing and to adapt some of the committee’s conclusions.
We have heard a lot this afternoon about the context of rising homelessness and of homes being called affordable when they are not affordable to very large numbers of people in work. We have very high house prices when compared internationally and very high rents in the private sector. The private sector is building only around 150,000 homes a year. We have low numbers of self and custom-build homes. We have declining space standards and large numbers of planning permissions granted but not carried through. The planning system is underresourced. Reductions in social rents may have helped the Government’s finances, but they have impacted negatively on the affordability of building new social homes for rent and on supported housing. As has been pointed out, it can be difficult for local authorities to develop brownfield sites without higher levels of remediation grant.
I say to the Minister in particular that reference has been made to the sale of high-value council homes. I had hoped that, by now, the Government might have told us that that proposal had been kicked well into the long grass and would not be proceeded with. The White Paper is not helped in its intentions if the Government are to continue with their proposal to sell high-value council homes. I hope that the Minister may be able to tell us, if not this afternoon then sometime soon, that that damaging policy will cease.
The committee’s conclusion in this report is that 300,000 homes a year should be built. Reference has been made to the Government’s target of 1 million new homes by 2020, but the word “target” is incorrect. It is not a target but a commitment; it became a commitment in the last Queen’s Speech. The difficulty for the Government is that the private sector can build only half of the 300,000 homes that the committee believes are needed. So there will be a requirement on everybody else to build the additional homes that I think we now generally recognise are needed—and, be that in the Government’s figure of 225,000 to 275,000 or the 300,000 of the Select Committee, it is significantly higher than what we are building.
The committee rightly pointed out that the Government are helping those on the verge of being able to afford home ownership, whereas those who need secure low-cost rental accommodation have not been helped sufficiently. This is correct; the Government’s focus on home ownership, while valuable and important, has been too great in comparison to that on the social rented sector. The Chartered Institute of Housing has said that the Government commit only 4% of their housing budget on below market rent social housing. That 4% is simply not high enough.
The committee said, as many of your Lordships have said this afternoon, that local authorities must be incentivised to do more. They should be able to borrow using the prudential borrowing code; I entirely subscribe to that. There are ways in which local authorities are doing good things. Bristol’s new housing company is a good example of what can be done. However, while the Government will impose a new housing delivery test on local authorities, that test is mainly about planning, not building. Local authorities need greater powers over borrowing if they are to build.
Indeed, if local authorities and housing associations build more, that will reduce demand for housing benefit, which now stands at a very high level. In the interests of good public policy, it seems to me that building more homes for social rent would save on the total amount being spent by a different government department.
I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about the Public Works Loan Board. Of course, some local government pension funds may be investing in property for perfectly good reasons. For the rest, I would not wish to comment, not knowing the facts. However, the Minister might consider writing to all those who have taken part in this debate about the issue. It is about the future role of the Public Works Loan Board, it is about the powers of local authority pension funds to invest and what they can invest in, and it is about the powers of councils to borrow now against, first, their housing revenue account but, secondly, their general asset base. At the moment, there is not clarity about that in local government. It might help if the Government made a formal statement.
I am taken by the proposal for a senior Cabinet Minister to get more public land released. The figure has been cited that 3 million homes could be built on land that is currently publicly owned. That is a very large number. I subscribe to the view that there should be a Cabinet seat for the Housing Minister and I subscribe to the committee’s recommendation that the best-market-value rule when releasing public land should be relaxed. I shall return to that in a moment.
The Government’s proposals of an increase of 20% in planning fees will probably suffice for the time being. I have certainly been impressed by the work about new towns that the Government are now undertaking under the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, now approaching Third Reading. Useful comments were made about the National Infrastructure Commission and its role to ensure that housing is considered as part of our infrastructure.
The White Paper has some good things in it. I like the fact that the rule about the 20% starter home requirement in larger new developments has been relaxed. I like the proposals for build to rent. I like the proposals to make the affordable homes programme open to all tenures and to promote custom-build and self-build. These are all helpful, as is the housing infrastructure fund.
The problem remains finance. House prices are running at eight times average earnings, and fewer and fewer young people can afford to buy. Less than 40% of those under the age of 35 can now afford to buy, when just 10 years ago it was two-thirds. In the north-east of England, my home region, more than 70% of working renting families cannot afford to buy a new home, even with Help to Buy. Across England, that figure is 83%.
This takes me, almost finally, to land values. The planning system encourages speculation. Land is sold to the highest bidder, even by the Government. Developers can outbid other developers, then sit on the land to wait for values to rise so that they get their money back and generate profit. Where they build, they regularly succeed in getting the affordability element reduced. Unless this issue is addressed, the White Paper will not increase housebuilding by very much. I draw two conclusions.
First, we should tax undeveloped land. The committee said that powers are needed for councils to levy council tax on developments not completed within a set time. I concur with that. I also support land value taxation. It is time for the Government to review the tax system for undeveloped land. Secondly, I should like to think that public bodies, including government departments, should be prepared to sell their land at below market value to break the cycle of ever-rising prices. Treasury rules need to be re-examined because they do not work properly for the medium to long-term.
The latest British Social Attitudes survey states that 56% of people would support more building of homes in their area. That figure has doubled in the past decade. The Government have an opportunity. They should grasp the opportunity of that rising public support for home building.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Lord Shipley ExcerptsWednesday 8th February 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 105KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment and every word uttered by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Cameron. I am not exactly a drinker, let alone of real ale, even when it is warm, but living where I do I have sadly seen the onward march of more and more soulless developments. Much-needed housing—of course, there is a housing crisis—is often built contrary to the wishes of the locality and the people living there. With the march of housing, the hubs that have made living in certain parts of the country so agreeable have been lost. It is all the more important to keep the local pub, whether in a suburb or village, as more housing is added. Those pubs add to integration and help to cement a community.
I find it particularly upsetting, having participated in neighbourhood planning, that the wishes of the residents of a locality are so often ignored. It is very important, before any pub is removed or changed, that the local residents be consulted and that we all do our best to promote more integration and mixing as more housing is built, as it will continue to be in the years to come. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 60 but speak to Amendment 61 in my name, which broadly reflects the amendment moved by Greg Mulholland MP in the other place a few weeks ago.
I too am grateful for the advice given by CAMRA. It has summed up the case in three lines:
“The removal of Permitted Development Rights relating to the demolition and change of use of pubs will substantially reduce the need for Asset of Community Value nominations and reduce the associated burdens on communities and business”.
There are other considerations about the rights of neighbourhoods and communities and so on, which I fully support.
The previous Government introduced the asset of community value register. It is particularly impressive that it has been reported that 2,000 pubs are now registered as assets of community value. It raises two questions: first, it could be argued that because 2,000 have been registered, the system therefore works. The other way of looking at it, which I prefer, is to say that if 2,000 pubs have been felt by their communities and neighbourhoods to need registration, that is a problem because the volume is so great. A simpler method of dealing with the problem is required.
I understand that the London Borough of Wandsworth has applied Article 4 direction in the borough. I am particularly interested in that as a solution. As I well know from having to introduce Article 4 directions in my own council in Newcastle years ago, it is a very complex procedure. Anyway, it is quite difficult to introduce Article 4 in a rural area; it suits an urban area better.
I hope the Minister will take this seriously, because we will be back to this on Report. There is a simple remedy. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my amendment provide that simple remedy, which is to remove permitted development rights. If the Government did that, someone wishing to change the purpose of a pub to something else would have to apply for planning permission, which seems to me entirely reasonable. I hope that when we get to Report, the Minister will see the justification for this case.
Lord Shipley
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where a person (an “acquiring authority”) could be authorised to acquire land compulsorily under another enactment or under subordinate legislation.”
Lord Shipley
I shall speak also to Amendments 68, 72 and 73. This group is the first of several about the procedures to be followed by an authority taking temporary possession of land. Current legislation permits only permanent compulsory purchase. As an example of what I think the Government are intending, we could take the building of a bridge. There may be a permanent compulsory purchase order for the bridge itself with a temporary compulsory purchase order for the building compound to store equipment and materials for the period of the building works.
This group of amendments relates to Clause 14. Other groups will follow which address further issues around temporary possession. For the avoidance of doubt, I state that all the amendments in my name are probing amendments to help to improve and clarify the meaning of the Bill. I thank the Compulsory Purchase Association for its advice on what I shall say on this group and on later groups.
Clause 14 sets out the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land if they could otherwise be authorised to acquire interest in that land permanently, but it could also be an opportunity to codify various statutory instruments authorising temporary possession, and it may prove beneficial for powers of temporary possession—for example, for post-construction inspection and correction of minor defects—to be incorporated. Can the Minister confirm whether codification that would provide a single process for temporary possession might be introduced? Amendment 65 substitutes a new subsection which makes it clear that a single code is envisaged.
There are several government amendments in this group, but at present I think that the wording of the four amendments in my name in this group is more suited to the ambition of the proposed change. Amendment 68 contains words which may not be needed, and I would appreciate the Minister’s guidance on that. Amendment 72 clarifies and emphasises that temporary possession of land need not be taken compulsorily but can be by agreement. Perhaps that needs to be emphasised. Amendment 73 explains the rights and responsibilities of an acquiring authority and proposed paragraph (c) protects the rights of tenants, particularly where a tenant maintains an intention to resume occupation when the acquiring authority ceases temporary possession. I am very happy to listen to the Minister’s response and to look at this again when the government amendments have been incorporated in the Bill, and so I am happy to wait for Report before speaking further on this group. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 69 and 75. They are pretty much self-explanatory. The former simply requires that guidance should be provided when there are temporary rights that can be granted at the same time over the same piece of land. Amendment 75 is rather more important because it provides that the section should not come into force until guidance has been published in relation to it. I assume that is the Government’s intention, and I hope they will accept that amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is back in charge. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, for tabling their amendments to Clause 14. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made it clear that his amendment was probing. Before I move on to discuss these and the government amendments to this clause, it may be helpful if I begin with a brief description of Clauses 14 to 26, which introduce the new temporary possession power.
All acquiring authorities may need to enter and use land for a temporary period. For example, they may require land to store materials for a scheme or to provide access to a construction site, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained. The problem is that, currently, only certain acquiring authorities have temporary possession powers—for example, under special Acts which are needed for very large schemes such as the Crossrail Act 2008. Crucially, compulsory purchase orders cannot authorise temporary possession. There is no good reason for this difference, and it is unfair to those who do not have the powers. Clauses 14 to 26 seek to create a level playing field by giving all acquiring authorities the same power to take temporary possession of land. It may also be in the interests of those on the receiving end of a CPO to have the possibility of being deprived of their land temporarily rather than permanently.
In giving acquiring authorities this power, we shall ensure that those whose land is taken are fairly compensated and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect their interests. That is set out in Clause 19. For example, temporary possession will have to be authorised in the same way as compulsory acquisition. Also, in certain circumstances, owners and occupiers will be able to require the acquiring authority to acquire the land permanently instead of occupying it on a temporary basis, if that is what they want.
Government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74 with Amendments 105 and 106 and amendments to other clauses, which I shall deal with later, remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be linked directly to a scheme for the acquisition of other land either by compulsion or agreement. Decoupling is the word that the professionals have been using. The reason for this change is that there may be situations where an acquiring authority needs to take only temporary possession of land. For example, an acquiring authority may need temporary possession of land for a contractor’s compound when they have been able to buy all the land needed for their scheme by agreement, or they may need access to land temporarily to maintain a highway. That is the impact of some of our amendments.
Government Amendments 105 and 106 are consequential on Amendment 66; they simply remove definitions of terms that are no longer required. Non-government Amendments 65, 68 and 72, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also seek to remove the requirement for the temporary possession to be directly linked to a compulsory acquisition scheme. I hope, therefore, that he will agree they are unnecessary in the light of the Government’s amendments.
On Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy, I agree with the noble Lord that we need to ensure that the interests of leaseholders are adequately protected in introducing this new power. However, I believe that that amendment is not needed, because we have already built in a safeguard which would deliver the same outcome that is requested, but in a more flexible way.
Amendment 69 would restrict the temporary possession power so that it could never be used when a leasehold interest would have less than a year to run after the land was handed back, even if that was the preference of the leaseholder, the freeholder and the acquiring authority. It sounds counterintuitive to prohibit that. The effect of this amendment would be that, if the land was essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority would instead be driven to exercising the more draconian power of compulsory acquisition of the land permanently. However, as I have said, we have already built in a safeguard for leaseholders, which I believe will achieve the outcome that noble Lords are seeking. The safeguard is in Clause 17(3), which allows leaseholders to serve a counternotice preventing the acquiring authority taking temporary possession of the land. On receipt of the counternotice, if the land is essential to the delivery of the scheme, the acquiring authority can proceed as if the land were subject to compulsory acquisition and take the land permanently. In these circumstances, the leaseholder would, of course, be compensated for both the value of his lease and losses caused by reason of being disturbed from possession of the land taken. I believe this is a neater solution, which gives leaseholders the flexibility to decide what is right for them.
Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seeks to clarify what will happen when a tenant’s land is subject to compulsory purchase. As government Amendment 103 seeks to do the same thing—although our approach is different—I will speak to both amendments together. Government Amendment 103 provides that the terms and obligations under the tenancy, with the exception of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy, will be disapplied to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them. Any expenditure which a leaseholder incurs as a result of the temporary possession would be claimed back from the acquiring authority. The noble Lord’s amendment, in contrast, provides that all the terms and obligations are unenforceable for the period of temporary possession.
The reason we have disapplied the terms and obligations only to the extent that the temporary possession prevents reasonable compliance with them is that there may be circumstances in which only a small part of land subject to a lease is also subject to temporary possession. In these situations, there may be no easy way in which to separate out the terms that relate to the land subject to temporary possession from terms that relate to the remainder of the land.
The second point of difference is the exclusion of the payment of rent and the length of the tenancy. We have done this because, again, where only a small part of a tenant’s land is required, making these terms unenforceable could result in a tenant having to pay an uncertain portion of the rent for the land not subject to temporary possession. The loss that would be compensated is not the rent payable for the existing lease, but any rent payable for alternative premises, as that is the loss that has been caused. Under the Government’s amendment, responsibility for paying the rent for the land under temporary possession remains with the tenant. However, the tenant will be entitled to claim compensation from the acquiring authority in relation to any expenditure which a leaseholder reasonably incurs as a result of the temporary possession.
The other point of difference with the noble Lord’s amendment is to do with proposed subsections (4) to (6), which make provision with regards to those who have protected tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Occupiers with such a protected tenancy have a right to apply for the grant of a new tenancy, provided they remain in occupation. However, if their land is subject to temporary possession they will no longer be in occupation and will lose this right. Government Amendment 103 and non-government Amendment 73 both seek to preserve this right to renew the tenancy. However, in doing so, the government amendment imposes a requirement for the tenant to confirm in writing to both the landlord and the acquiring authority that they intend to resume occupation after temporary possession. I think it is clear that both amendments are after the same thing: greater clarity for tenants and landlords as to what happens during the temporary possession period, including the treatment of rent.
Finally, in this group, I will respond to Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The noble Lord made a very valid point, which I entirely agree with, that where the Government intend to provide guidance on the use of a new power, that guidance should be available by the time the provisions come into force. That is, of course, the Government’s intention. The particular element of the temporary possession provisions that the noble Lord has identified is in Clause 15(3)(a), which will allow both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers to be obtained concurrently for the same piece of land.
Although this so-called doubling-up of temporary and permanent powers can be authorised, it will not give acquiring authorities carte blanche to double up in all cases. It would not be fair to claimants if there was not a very good reason for an acquiring authority to make an order which included this doubling-up. It would not be wise to anticipate precisely what might be in the guidance at this point, but as I have just said, there would be a high bar to justify doubling-up. The most likely circumstances would be linear transport projects where the final design is not complete by the time compulsory powers are obtained. We know of a handful of orders in the last dozen years where this has been authorised, such as the Docklands Light Railway and the Nottingham tramway.
As for compulsory acquisitions, each case would be considered on its individual merits at a public inquiry before an inspector, and considered by the relevant Secretary of State, before a decision was made whether doubling-up was justified in the public interest.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, with a firm undertaking that the Government will be seeking views on the draft guidance and will publish it before these provisions come into force. I apologise to the Committee for a somewhat lengthy oration on these amendments, but there are quite a few of them. When the time comes, I will move government Amendments 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 103, 105 and 106. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 65 and for noble Lords not to press Amendments 68, 69, 72, 73 and 75.
Lord Shipley
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I draw his attention to two facts. First, the Government have brought 34 amendments for consideration this afternoon, this Bill having passed in the other place. Secondly, some of them were tabled quite late, and after I tabled my amendment. I understand the need for all this to be brought together for Report, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we now move to the second group of amendments on temporary possession. Clause 15 deals with the procedure for authorising temporary possession of land, requiring it to be authorised by the type of authorising instrument that would be required for the permanent acquisition of land—for example, a compulsory purchase order.
Government Amendments 76 to 79 remove redundant wording in Clause 15(2) as a consequence of government Amendment 66 to Clause 14(1). Government Amendments 80 to 82 amend Clause 15(3) to clarify that the same land may be subject to both temporary possession and compulsory acquisition powers concurrently. We debated the need for guidance relating to the clause a moment ago on Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, so I shall not repeat what I said about that. Government Amendments 83 to 85 and 87—the last also, happily, endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—all remove redundant provisions in the context of the previous amendments. For example, Amendment 87 refers to “relevant land”: this is no longer needed because the concept of relevant land is removed by Amendment 66. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name, and I want to ask the Minister a question. Clause 15 sets out the procedures for authorising temporary possession. It is not clear from the clause whether it is intended that there be a time limit for the life of a temporary power—for instance, three years for service of a notice post the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order. Do the three-year and five-year standards for compulsory purchase orders in statutory instruments apply, and does the power apply to post-construction maintenance during a defect period?
The Government’s amendments to remove superfluous words are helpful. I am not sure whether Amendment 87, which deletes subsection (7), is right—I am having second thoughts about it. I think it is right, but as the relevant land is the land required for the scheme, it seems appropriate to make it clear that temporary possession can be taken after action to secure the land required permanently. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment.
Lord Young of Cookham
I may need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the specific issue he has raised on Amendment 87 and subsection (7) relating to relevant land. As I said, this is no longer needed, because the concept of relevant land has been removed by Amendment 66, with which we have just dealt. However, I will make some inquiries following his representations.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed in Amendment 86 that Clause 15(6) should be omitted. This is intended to be helpful clarification. It confirms that the authorising instrument—for example, a CPO—does not need to include the dates for any particular period of temporary possession. It would be difficult for an acquiring authority to do that, because it would not know the date of the confirmation at that stage. The cross-reference to Clause 16 points users to the provisions which specify the dates of temporary possession. The Government believe that there is no need for users of this legislation to be deprived of this clarification. He also asked a question about whether CPO powers would expire after a certain period. Again, I will write to him about this when I have made some inquiries. In the meantime, I hope that he will not move his Amendment 86.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am aware that I have tabled a number of amendments to this section of the Bill. I am also aware that some detailed discussion has taken place outside the Chamber. I am generally content that we are moving in the right direction and do not intend to delay the Committee for long.
We welcome the statutory framework for dealing with temporary possession. Amendment 88 seeks to make it clear that an acquiring authority may serve one or more notices under the clause. I was concerned that that was not very clear from where we stand at the moment. I would like to hear a response from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in respect of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94 in my name. These five amendments relate to Clause 17, which makes provision for a person affected by temporary possession to serve a counternotice to limit the total period which the temporary possession can last to 12 months in the case of a dwelling and six years in any other case. Leaseholders can also serve a counternotice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession. Having received the counternotice the acquiring authority must decide whether to accept it, withdraw the notice or proceed to take the land permanently.
As drafted, Clause 17 seems unnecessarily complex. The hope is that the Government might be able to simplify it without losing any of its statutory force. Regarding Amendment 89, Clause 17 applies wherever an acquiring authority gives notice of intended entry on to land for a temporary period to a person who is either the freeholder of the land affected or a leasehold owner. The clauses that follow seem to have a different counternotice procedure, depending on whether it is a freeholder or a leaseholder. So in connection with Amendment 89, is there a need to distinguish between leaseholders and freeholders? This amendment and the consequential amendments seek to avoid that and therefore to simplify the clause.
Amendment 91 refers to Clause 17(3), which allows a leaseholder to give the acquiring authority a counternotice to prevent it taking temporary possession of the land. It appears that this right is not available to freeholders, who can serve only a counternotice limiting the period of temporary possession. Surely, this right should be available to freeholders. This amendment therefore seeks to clarify the matter by stating:
“The owner may give the acquiring authority a counter-notice which provides that the authority may not take temporary possession of the owner’s interest”.
We then have consequential Amendments 92, 93 and 94. Clause 17(10) states that nothing in that clause,
“prevents an acquiring authority acquiring land compulsorily after accepting a counter-notice or withdrawing a notice of intended entry”.
My question is: should a permanent acquisition be available for temporary land unless a counternotice has been served requiring a permanent rather than temporary acquisition? Clause 17(8) is relevant in this respect. Amendment 94 would therefore leave out lines 38 to 40 on page 15. The concern is that landowners could potentially face a period of six years of temporary possession with the acquiring authority then deciding to acquire the land permanently. In the interests of fairness, the land should surely have been acquired permanently in the beginning. Scheme promoters should know how they wish to use the land and whether it needs to be permanently acquired from the outset.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling his Amendment 88. I appreciate that his aim in doing so was to make things clearer, an ambition which I fully support. However, on this occasion I do not think that an amendment is necessary because subsection (7) provides that Clause 16 must be complied with,
“in relation to each subsequent period of temporary possession”.
That makes it clear that acquiring authorities can serve more than one notice. Having said that, this is the sort of thing that could usefully be covered in guidance. We will update our compulsory purchase guidance in light of the reforms in the Bill, and in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask for this matter to be looked at again.
Amendments 89 and 91 to 93 deal with the counternotice provisions in Clause 17. These provisions are an improvement on the current temporary possession regimes, which have no counternotice procedure in them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling his amendments. No one would be keener than I to simplify all this, if it were possible so to do. I doubt whether it would be realistic wholly to redraft this clause between now and Report but I endorse his sense of direction. He is quite right to say that there is a difference between the treatment of leaseholders and that of freeholders. This is because the Government believe that there could be a greater impact on leaseholders than freeholders when their land is subject to temporary possession, as the leaseholder may be left with a useless lease at the end of the temporary possession period—for example, when there is only a short period left to run on the lease. We considered this in debate on Amendment 69.
Clause 17(3) affords leaseholders additional protections in these circumstances by giving them the option to serve a counternotice, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, providing that an acquiring authority cannot take temporary possession of their land at all. However, no such issues arise for freeholders. The justification for the temporary possession of the land will have been carefully considered on its individual merits at a public local inquiry before an independent inspector and confirmed only where it is in the public interest.
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
My Lords, in moving Amendment 95, I will also speak to Amendments 96, 97 and 102. Clause 19 makes provision in respect of the payment of compensation to those who suffer loss or injury as a result of the exercise of powers of temporary possession, but there are concerns about a number of subsections in the clause. Amendment 95 addresses Clause 19(2), which provides a person—the “claimant”—with an entitlement to compensation in respect of,
“any loss or injury the claimant sustains as a result”.
I have two points here. First, would it not be better to replace “injury” with “damage”? Is there a legal reason why the word injury is used? Damage is of course more wide-ranging. Secondly, should the subsection be redrafted to make it clear that the loss or damage—or perhaps injury—must have been sustained as a result of the temporary possession of the land? The amendment would bring the drafting into line with the usual form adopted in clauses relating to compensation for the temporary possession of land, which typically state that the loss, injury or damage must have resulted from the exercise of the powers—I refer in particular to the Crossrail Act 2008. In addition, are those subsections still needed, given that other amendments are being proposed?
Amendment 97 refers to Clause 19(7), which is intended to clarify that, for the purposes of the statutory limitation period, time will not begin to run until the expiry of the last day of the temporary possession period. I understand that the Bill originally sought to achieve this objective by stating that a “claim for compensation” would “accrue on the last day of the temporary possession period”. The Compulsory Purchase Association’s view is that the original drafting would have caused problems, but that the revised drafting is not complete. The original drafting would have left claimants exposed to a potential argument that, because the claim was stated not to accrue until that time for the purposes of Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980, they also had no cause of action enabling them to claim for compensation or refer the matter to a tribunal at any earlier time. Thus, in cases where temporary possession is to last a number of years, it could result in claimants having to bear losses without compensation for a number of years, which seems unfair.
The government amendment is intended to address that problem, but it may still permit an argument that, if the cause of action is to be treated as accruing on the last day of the temporary possession period for the purposes of the Limitation Act, notwithstanding that it would otherwise be regarded as accruing before or during the temporary possession period, the cause of action should also be regarded as accruing at that later time for other purposes, including the making of a claim or reference.
The advice that I have received is that an addition should be made to the subsection to confirm that the deemed accrual applies for the purpose of the Limitation Act alone. As such, I am advised that my drafting for Clause 19(7) helps to avoid doubt. The amendment states:
“for all other purposes a claim will accrue as the possible damages suffered as a claimant is not precluded from making a claim pursuant to subsection (2) prior to the last day of that period”.
I understand the complexity of this, and that the Minister may want to respond in writing; the 34 government amendments this afternoon reveal that this is a complex matter. I am not necessarily looking to the Minister to reply to this now. I just hope that before we get to Report, the matter can be clarified so that we have a Bill that is clear in its meaning and will not end up being challenged in the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, speaking as a lawyer, although happily not practising, I see no need to amend the term “injury” to “damage”. Legally, injury embraces damage of all kinds. I would not go to extremes to defend the Government on this or any other occasion, but if the Minister felt disinclined to accept the amendment, I would not dissent from his judgment.
Lord Shipley
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of that and look forward to further discussion and any correspondence that may help us reach Report with absolute clarity about what we are dealing with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley
Clause 27 relates to the no-scheme principle. In moving Amendment 107, I wish to speak also to Amendments 109 and 111.
Clause 27 seeks to put the no-scheme principle in the compensation code on to a statutory footing. The Bill defines the no-scheme principle as,
“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme for which the authority acquires the land is to be disregarded”.
Amendment 107 seeks to take this further to make the Bill state that,
“any increase in the value of land caused by the scheme or the prospect of the scheme”,
should also be disregarded. The Government have tabled a very similar amendment. I welcome that amendment and do not plan to say any more about it.
I turn to Amendment 109. New Section 6A(3) on page 21 of the Bill states:
“In applying the no-scheme principle the following rules in particular … are to be observed”.
This amendment seeks to delete the words “in particular” given that new Section 6A contains five rules which are clearly defined. I will come on to Rule 4 in a moment. If one has rules defining what the position is, why do we need the words “in particular”? That implies that there are other rules that might be considered and there is no indication as to what those might be. The current position is that only the statutory disregards can be taken into account in disregarding the scheme. This provides clarity over the valuation exercise to be undertaken. I hope the Minister will agree that “in particular” on page 21, line 28 should be taken out.
Finally, Amendment 111 relates to Rule 4. The purpose of scheme cancellation being on the valuation date is to avoid the need to speculate on what may have happened between the date of cancelation and valuation because they are the same. It is not clear what the purpose of Rule 4 is. It seems to be unnecessary and likely to create confusion, particularly in the context of the other four rules. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why it forms part of the Bill and why the words “in particular” need to appear in new Section 6A in Clause 27. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will be brief. In this group, I have Amendments 116, 117, 118 and 119. The first three seek to leave out “highway” on page 24, lines 14, 16 and 17, and insert “transport project”. We thought that would make the issue clearer. New Sections 6D(3), 6D(4)(a) and 6D(4)(b) in Clause 27 use “transport project” and I therefore did not understand why later in the same clause it was referred to as a highway scheme. Can the Minister explain why that is the case and if my amendments are not necessary? If they are, I hope he will accept them as it is odd to move from the wider and encompassing definition of transport project to the narrower definition of “highway”.
Amendment 119 seeks to provide further clarity by removing “announced”. In these sorts of schemes you get into arguments about when things were announced so we thought it would be much clearer to put,
“first proposed in consultation with the public”.
There will be an actual date on which a consultation is started and when papers and a clear plan are sent out. We thought this would be much better as we do not want disputes later because everyone is arguing about when the scheme was formally announced. That is the purpose behind the amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we have moved on to the no-scheme principle. The problem with this principle is that since it was first established it has been interpreted in a number of complex and often contradictory ways. Clause 27 is intended to clarify the position. It creates a statutory no-scheme principle and sets out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world. It also extends the definition of the scheme to include a relevant transport project in circumstances where land acquired in the vicinity for a regeneration or redevelopment scheme is facilitated or made possible by that project. We are extending the scheme because we want to ensure that an acquiring authority should not pay more for the land it is acquiring by reason of its own or someone else’s public investment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for explaining the need for Amendment 107. The Committee will have observed that it is similar to government Amendment 108, so I am pleased to say that I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord. It is entirely correct that increases, as well as decreases, in the value of the land caused by the prospect of the scheme should be disregarded.
Amendment 109 was also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He argues that the words “in particular” should be omitted from the introduction to the rules defining the no-scheme world as they imply that some other rules might also be in play. He argues that the rules set out in new Section 6A should be an exclusive list. The Government’s expectation is that in the vast majority of cases the application of the rules as set out will be sufficient to establish the no-scheme world. There may, however, be rare cases in unforeseen circumstances where the Upper Tribunal considers that the application of the rules alone would not give a fair result. Retaining the phrase “in particular” gives the tribunal sufficient flexibility in these rare cases to fall back on the underlying no-scheme principle set out in new Section 6A(2) and its own common sense to arrive at a fair outcome. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s point about the need for clarity, the Government’s view is that the Upper Tribunal should retain this flexibility in order to reach a fair outcome in such unforeseen circumstances.
With Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and government Amendment 112 we now move to consideration of the rules themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, argues that Rule 4 is unnecessary and should be omitted. The Government’s view is that it remains necessary in order to complement Rule 3. Rule 3 assumes that there is no prospect of the same scheme or any other project to meet the same or substantially the same need as the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Rule 4 assumes that there is no prospect of any other scheme taking place on the land concerned. As currently drafted, this is too wide, so Amendment 112 restricts Rule 4 to disregarding only those schemes that could be undertaken only by the exercise of statutory functions or compulsory purchase powers. This means that the prospect of schemes brought forward by the private sector would still be considered as part of the no-scheme world. This is a fine point of valuation practice. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I think that the Government should further consider this issue very carefully with the expert practitioners who may conceivably have been briefing the noble Lord to find a solution.
Amendments 116, 117 and 118 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. New Section 6D(6) specifies that when the scheme to be disregarded under Rule 3 is a highway scheme, the reference to “any other project” includes another highway scheme to meet the same need as the actual scheme. This provision reflects the planning assumption in Section 14(5)(d) of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It is important that the assumptions for the no-scheme world and the planning assumptions that should be applied in that no-scheme world should be consistent. The current Section 14 was substituted by the Localism Act 2011. A similar provision was added to the original version of Section 14 by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The noble Lord put forward a powerful case that this clarification could apply equally to other transport projects. If it did, Section 14 would also need to be amended to keep the two sets of assumptions in step. I think that this is another issue which the Government should reflect on with expert practitioners.
Turning to the definition of the scheme that must be disregarded before compensation may be assessed, government Amendments 113, 114 and 115 make some small adjustments in the context of the extension of the scheme to relevant transport projects. These have arisen from discussions between the Government and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, which have only recently been concluded. I am very happy to give details if noble Lords would like them, but as they are relatively small adjustments, I propose to skip that part of the text.
I now return to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Amendment 119 seeks to clarify new Section 6E(3) which disapplies Section 6E for land bought after a relevant transport project was announced but before this Bill was published. If such land were to be included in a redevelopment or regeneration project in the vicinity of that relevant transport project, it would be valued as if the relevant transport project was not part of the scheme to be disregarded.
The noble Lord’s amendment is much more specific than the Bill as currently drafted. The Government’s view is that such precision may not be necessary. The provision refers to an event that has already happened, and it is quite possible that a project may have been announced in some other way than that specified by the announcement. If so, it would be unfair to restrict this provision because the announcement did not fit within the somewhat narrow definition proposed.
However, having said that, it might be possible to clarify, perhaps in guidance, exactly what is meant by an announcement. That is certainly something that I would like to reflect on. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to withdraw Amendment 107.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 107. I look forward to reading carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said, with a view to potentially coming back to this on Report.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I want to add my amateur voice to that of the professionals who have commented so far. At our previous sitting, we had an extended discussion about the sweeping provisions of Clause 12, making it a Henry VIII clause. The Minister went out of his way to reassure us about the very limited intent of Ministers in relation to that clause. One of the issues, which was perhaps not made very explicit in that debate, is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, made about the lack of public trust in the system, which the Neighbourhood Planning Bill and the Localism Act were specifically introduced to reverse. The Act seems to be doing so in places where it is taking root, which is absolutely excellent, and anything which would tend to undermine that trust and lead to uncertainty about the effectiveness of the new system is certainly to be avoided if possible.
I look at this from a pragmatic point of view, though I absolutely accept and endorse the constitutional point of view that has been put forward. With Clause 12 and Clause 38 we basically have a Henry VIII clause followed by a William I Clause. William I galloped through England laying waste to everything he saw, and that does not leave a very favourable impression of the direction of travel of the Bill. I hope that on top of any constitutional considerations, issues of news management, at least, might penetrate and make a difference to the Government’s approach.
My noble friend Lord Thomas said that there is surely some wording that could be used to make this a clause about owning up to mistakes. A phrase limiting its application only to cases where there was manifest error or omission would at least put on record and in the Bill its intended limitations.
Lord Shipley
I tried to add my name to this clause stand part Motion but unfortunately the queue was too long and I was not able to. I understand that mistakes can be made and need to be rectified. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we have, on day one of Committee, had 34 government amendments to a Bill which has passed to us from the other place. That shows that Bills have to be drafted better so that we do not end up with people wanting to change them because the right level of thought was not put in to them in the first place. In her emphasis on neighbourhood planning, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, had it absolutely right—a clause of this kind in a Bill to do with neighbourhood planning, which can, in effect, put a coach and horses through any aspect of it, is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister understands that, and I very much hope that this clause will not survive beyond Committee.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there is a certain irony in a Henry VIII clause applying to Wales, given that the Tudor monarchy was based on Welsh lineage. I am also reminded of the lines of TS Eliot in The Hollow Men:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper”.
The Bill is ending in the reverse order. We have had a generally mild and constructive discussion for the past four days in Committee, but we end with something of a bang, because if the Government stick to their position, what is being perpetrated in the clause will lead to significant disagreement.
It is particularly important that the Government should listen to advice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Others of us have our own views—we perhaps have a political approach, even those of us who are lawyers of a senior vintage, if I may put it that way. To hear the noble and learned Lord’s critique must surely give the Government pause for thought. It is simply unacceptable to insist on a procedure that leaves so much power in the hands of the Government effectively to ignore the obligations which ought to apply in relation to the Welsh Assembly, in this case, but in general to the operation of secondary legislation. In the few years that I have been here, that has time and again been shown to be defective as a mechanism for sustaining proper parliamentary consideration at the appropriate time of important measures with significant implications for various aspects of public policy.
I hope that the Minister will take this back and respond constructively, or secure permission to do so, to the views of this Committee and those of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, it appears—for I had not noticed its report—to take the views of the Constitution Committee into account. Obviously, he cannot give us any firm commitments tonight but I hope that, after consulting his colleagues, he will be able to satisfy the House by indicating that. Otherwise, it will undoubtedly have to go to Report and, if necessary, a vote at Report. I hope that we can avoid that because, on the whole, the Bill has proceeded in a fairly consensual way. Most of us have endeavoured to work with the grain of the Government’s policy. It would be a shame if that were in contrast with a rigid decision to stick with very unsatisfactory drafting right at the end of the Bill.
Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017
Lord Shipley Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, we move from the international to the local. The draft orders we are considering this afternoon, if approved and made, will provide the rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities and the rules by which mayoral vacancies are to be declared, and the procedure for filling them through by-elections. They are essential to enable the first elections of combined authority mayors to take place in May 2017.
The two orders we are considering, if approved and made, will mark a further milestone in implementing agreed devolution deals to date. They are essential for ensuring that elections for the office of mayor can be conducted and any mid-term vacancies filled on a consistent and fair basis.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government committed in their manifesto to implement devolution deals where there was local support and where such deals would result in benefit to local communities. These deals have been forthcoming. Devolution involves conferring significant powers and budgets on local areas that have agreed to have directly elected mayors, providing that essential single point of accountability for such major new powers.
I remind noble Lords that Parliament has approved, and we have made orders, establishing city region mayors in Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region, Sheffield city region, the West Midlands and the Tees Valley. Furthermore, orders creating such mayors in the west of England and for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have been laid before Parliament to be considered. If approved, they will be in place in time for them to elect their first combined authority mayors in May. In all these cases, the councils have agreed and consented to having a directly elected mayor.
The orders provide first and foremost for the conduct of the elections for those mayors that will first take place in May this year. The rules will apply in those and subsequent elections. The second and smaller order provides for how vacancies in the mayoral office are to be handled should a vacancy arise following election. Both these orders have been debated in and consented to by the other place, with the vast majority in favour. This support reflects the vital nature of these orders to ensure that mayoral elections for combined authorities can go ahead in May.
Finally, for setting the wider context, orders that will confer devolved powers on these mayors once elected will come forward. The first such order was approved by Parliament before Christmas, devolving powers to the Greater Manchester mayor. Orders devolving powers to the west of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and the Tees Valley are before Parliament. We will bring orders in the coming weeks for the Liverpool city region and the West Midlands. We will also lay further orders for the Tees Valley and Greater Manchester.
On the specifics of the orders, I emphasise that they should be seen in the context of the full body of electoral law governing local elections throughout England. These orders do not seek to make piecemeal changes to this wider body of law. The rules set out in the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order closely reflect the rules that apply to local authority elections, elections of local authority mayors and elections for police and crime commissioners.
The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order makes detailed provision about the conduct of the elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities. Although the order may seem bulky—running to some 151 pages—it is necessary to fully specify all the rules of these elections of combined authority mayors. This full specification of the rules is the approach we use for all other elections.
As I have said, these rules largely replicate the generality of election rules and apply them to the particular situation of combined authority mayors. Therefore, I simply highlight the four areas where special provision for combined authority mayors has been made, because the circumstances of these mayors is such that the standard rules could not appropriately be applied.
First, particular provision has been made for candidate deposits. These are the deposits that candidates must lodge and which are returned to the candidate if their share of the vote is more than 5%. The rules in the draft order provide that the deposit for a mayoral candidate is £5,000. This is the same amount as the deposit for candidates for police and crime commissioners. It is significantly greater than the £500 required for a local authority mayor. The difference reflects, and is commensurate with, both the larger size of the areas over which a combined authority mayor or police and crime commissioner will have jurisdiction and their level of responsibility.
Secondly, there is particular provision for nomination arrangements. This is the number of signatures that candidates are required to collect to be validly nominated for election. With this order, the requirement for candidates for election as combined authority mayors is to secure a minimum of 100 subscriptions—that is, signatures of electors. Moreover, at least 10 of these subscriptions must come from the area of each constituent council; in two-tier areas, from each district council within the area of the combined authority. In cases with more than 10 constituent authorities, candidates will still require at least 10 subscriptions from each area, and so in such a case will require more than 100 total subscriptions. This is a significant increase from the rule for local authority mayors, which requires candidates to secure 28 subscriptions. As with deposits, this increased requirement is commensurate with the increased constituency size and responsibilities of combined authority mayors. The requirement to obtain a number of subscriptions from each constituent area ensures that candidates secure support from the full range of areas, however diverse, within any combined authority. It would prevent for example, candidates being nominated who secure support, say, from one particular part of a combined authority area—perhaps the rural hinterland—but have no support in the urban core.
Thirdly, particular provision is made for candidate spending limits. This is the limit that restricts the amount candidates are able to spend on election expenses during the election campaign. For local authority mayors, candidates are limited to £2,362, plus 5.9p per registered elector in the local authority area. For a combined authority mayor, this limit is £2,362 per constituent council, plus 5.9p per registered elector within the combined authority area. This provision—with the majority of the funding being measured per capita— ensures that appropriate candidate spending limits are set across the range of mayoral combined authorities, which vary significantly in size. Total candidate spending limits under this provision also, when appropriately scaled for numbers of electors, align closely with the spending limit for candidates campaigning for election as Mayor of London.
Noble Lords will notice that all these candidate limits—for local authority mayors, combined authority mayors and Mayor of London—are lower than those for police and crime commissioner elections. This is because candidates for police and crime commissioner will need to spend more in order to communicate directly with the electorate, since in these elections there is no requirement on the returning officer to prepare an election address booklet covering all candidates to be delivered to all electors at no cost to the candidates.
Fourthly, this order allows for the creation of a combined authority returning officer—or CARO—to be appointed by the combined authority. This is similar to the provision creating a police area returning officer—or PARO—for police and crime commissioner elections, and ensures that there is an appropriate individual appointed to oversee the election as a whole.
It should be understood that in both of these roles, the respective returning officers are personally responsible for publishing the notice of elections, administering the nomination process, ensuring that candidates comply with the requirements regarding the content of their election addresses, collating and calculating the number of votes given for each candidate, calculating the result and declaring the result. It is therefore highly important that this role is carried out by a competent individual.
Turning to the Combined Authorities (Mayors) (Filling of Vacancies) Order 2017, this smaller order is necessary to establish the rules by which vacancies are declared in the office of combined authority mayor, and the procedure for filling these vacancies through by-elections. They follow exactly the procedures adopted for other types of local authority. Noble Lords will understand that these provisions are required to be in place in advance of the election of combined authority mayors in May 2017 to ensure that any subsequent vacancies can be appropriately and consistently dealt with.
In conclusion, the draft orders we are considering today are vital to ensure that the democratic elections to these important offices can first take place in May 2017, and that associated arrangements are in place in good time should any mid-term vacancies occur. It is these detailed rules set out in the orders before us today that provide the strong legal framework for these elections. It is such a framework that ensures that all can have confidence that the elections have been fairly conducted and that the outcome of the poll genuinely reflects the democratic wish of local electors. I commend both draft orders to the House.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the discussion of these orders. I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I seek clarification on two points in one of the orders, because, broadly speaking, most of what is proposed is not contentious for us.
I have a question about the combination of polls, and my query lies with paragraphs 8.7 and 8.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The memorandum says, rightly, that when you combine polls, that produces cost savings. Given that this is a new election, can the mayoral elections be held on the same day as a general election? In other words, might we end up with three elections on one day? I note the following words in paragraph 8.10:
“Government is confident that electoral administrators will be able to effectively administer combined authority mayoral elections and other polls that they may be combined with”.
That says that the Government are confident, but what evidence were they given by electoral administrators? Running three elections at once is clearly more complicated than running two.
My second question relates to the election booklet that the Minister referred to. Is it the intention to distribute that election booklet alongside poll cards? Clearly, if it is a single process, that will reduce costs at a time when local authorities are having great difficulty in balancing their budgets. Having to pay for two separate distributions will be more expensive and unwieldy than if both are delivered together.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests—specifically, that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
As we have been told, the orders before us today, if approved, will provide the framework and rules for the conduct of elections for directly elected mayors of combined authorities, specifically for the elections taking place in May this year. The second order, as we have heard, deals with the process of addressing vacancies in the office of mayor and sets out how those will be dealt with. I am happy to support both orders before the House this afternoon.
I note that the first order contains matters such as the spending limits and the formula to calculate those limits, the number of voters needed to sign a nomination paper to make it a valid nomination, and other administrative matters which are quite normal for elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised a couple of points and I shall be interested to hear the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. However, he may be pleased to learn that in fact I have no questions for him in respect of either order and am content to approve both.
Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2016
Lord Shipley Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this a slightly lengthier discussion than we had on the previous two orders. It results from there having been great cross-party collaboration when the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill passed through your Lordships’ House. That work developed the basis for the proposals now before us. Let me say at the outset that much of it is welcome.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I want first to ask the Minister to confirm that the order will apply to all combined authorities automatically and that, if there is to be a combined authority in future which does not have a mayor, the order will apply to it as well. I then have a few specific questions. When the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill passed, we had established separate overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees—it was right to separate those two functions. But in the case of audit, I hope that the Minister can confirm that it will encompass risk, particularly investment decisions.
One function of overview and scrutiny will be to scrutinise risk, but there are advantages in audit committees having a clear risk function as well, because some investment decisions will be very big financial decisions. It was good to see from the list of consultees that the National Audit Office and the Centre for Public Scrutiny were consulted, because one of the aims that we had with the Bill was to ensure that value-for-money audits were done, as well as simply financial audits. Can the Minister confirm whether the proposals given to the Government by the National Audit Office and the Centre for Public Scrutiny have been incorporated in this order?
I have a further concern that there is to be no governance framework for the operation of overview and scrutiny committees. My questions are: how does an overview and scrutiny committee know what it needs to scrutinise? Who will tell it what it should review? Am I right in assuming that agendas and papers for the meetings of combined authorities will be made available, and that they will include both the public and private parts of those agendas? We need to be clear exactly what is proposed here. When the Bill was passed, there was a lot of concern about access to meetings. We do not want to see decisions being taken in lengthy pre-meetings of combined authorities, from which the press and public are excluded, with the formal meeting of a combined authority being very limited in time and content. I submit to the Minister that such an outcome would not be good for local democracy or for the success of mayoral combined authorities in the public perception.
The absence of a governance framework places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the committee members, in particular independent members, to ensure transparency and openness. I suggest to the Government that they should monitor the appointment of independent members. There is clearly a process, which we welcome, but I think the Government will need to monitor that appointment process to ensure that it is indeed wholly transparent.
I have a further query about timescales, which relates to the two months allowed for a combined authority to respond to an overview and scrutiny committee. The timescales, as I understand them, are these: an overview and scrutiny committee will call in a decision if it wishes to, which will prevent implementation for up to 14 days. When that committee has held its meeting, the combined authority or mayor must hold a meeting to consider what it has said within 10 days. Potentially, that gives 24 days for the total time taken to that point. However, a period of two months is then allowed for the combined authority to respond to the overview and scrutiny committee, to explain why it made its decision. That is too long. I have not understood why it should take two months. I would be puzzled if it needed to take more than a fortnight, but there may be a reason that I have not understood. I am happy to seek the Minister’s reassurance on this point.
Finally, I would like an explanation, if the Minister is able to give one, for the statement about protecting the overview and scrutiny committee’s independence in the Explanatory Notes. The relevant bullet point, at the top of page 4, says that,
“to protect the overview and scrutiny committee’s independence, the committee may not include any officer from the combined authority or the combined authority’s constituent councils”.
That sounds eminently right and reasonable. What I am not clear about is exactly how the overview and scrutiny committees will then be staffed. There will clearly have to be staff members present, writing opinions and papers for the attention of scrutiny committee members, which implies quite significant staffing. That may be fine, but presumably it also implies that the officers giving advice to the overview and scrutiny committee will potentially be required to give evidence to the overview and scrutiny committee. What power does an overview and scrutiny committee—which may not include any officer from the combined authority or the combined authority’s constituent councils, so there must be independent officers present—have to require an officer who has given advice to a combined authority to attend a meeting? I should be grateful if the Minister will explain that point.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, again for completeness, I refer the House to my interests set out in the register in so far as they are relevant to the issues being debated. I should state at the outset that I am content with the order before your Lordships’ House and am happy to approve it.
Generally, the order brings combined authorities under arrangements similar to those that exist elsewhere in local government. The new combined authorities, which will elect their mayors this May, will have considerable powers over large areas of service delivery and policy that have a tremendous effect over people’s lives. The powers that it is proposed to give to these new elected mayors and combined authorities are, in some cases, not yet through their parliamentary procedures, such as bus franchising, which is being debated in the other place as it considers the Bus Services Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises some important points about how the procedures will operate in the future and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
I am pleased about the measures in respect of overview and scrutiny, which can serve a valuable function. I have first-hand experience of this, so I hope that the House will allow me to explain with a local example how valuable the function is. I have told the House many times before that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. I may not have mentioned that I am a supporter of and season ticket holder at Millwall Football Club. I and many other councillors, residents and campaigners—including Vicky Foxcroft, the Member for Lewisham Deptford, Neil Coyle, the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, and the Association of Millwall Supporters—were concerned at the proposals for redevelopment around the Den, which would not deliver any social housing or enough affordable housing. The club was clear that that potentially put its future at risk in a part of south-east London where it has been part of the community since 1910. Councillor Alan Hall, Councillor Brenda Dacres and others on the overview and scrutiny committee were able to provide robust challenge to the proposals. Other cabinet members, including Councillor Joe Dromey, also opposed the plans, which in recent weeks had a considerable amount of publicity in the Guardian, the Evening Standard, the South London Press, Private Eye, Sky Sports and the BBC. I have been struck by how many members of the House’s staff have said to me as walked past, “Defend my Den, my Lord”.
Yesterday it was announced that the planned compulsory purchase of land leased to Millwall would not be going ahead and that the local authority wants to get around the table to seek agreement on the way forward in a manner that brings together the club, the Millwall Community Trust, which does a great job with children in the area, and others to secure the redevelopment by agreement. Overview and scrutiny played an invaluable role in achieving that turnaround, as did the Association of Millwall Supporters, by highlighting concerns and issues. That is a local example of effective overview and scrutiny. I am happy to support the order.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the Hansard report of what the noble Lord just said should be sent to the members of every overview and scrutiny committee throughout the country in order to get an insight into how these committees can effectively further local democracy.
I will deal with some of the questions that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. First, yes, the template that we are setting out today will apply not just to the authorities already up and running but to all combined authorities, whether or not they have a mayor—so existing and future.
The noble Lord then asked about risk. The 2016 Act sets out the requirement to establish an audit committee and gives these committees the power to review and scrutinise the authority’s financial affairs, including the,
“risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements”.
He asked whether we would monitor the appointment of the independent members to make sure that they were genuinely independent. Yes, we will. As for times, these are maximum times, and I may be able to say a little more about that in a moment.
The noble Lord also mentioned the absence of a governance framework. The order provides the broad legislative framework, while the guidance, which the Centre for Public Scrutiny is preparing, will help each combined authority to develop its detailed framework and operational arrangements for scrutiny. Officials worked with both the NAO and the centre in the development of this legislation, and their proposals have largely been included. We will work closely with the CfPS on the guidance, which it is going to publish shortly.
On access to information and the ability to summon, the overview and scrutiny committee has access to information powers, including the power to require the mayor, officers and members of the combined authority to come before the committee and answer questions and give evidence. The combined authority will establish an O&S committee and the order requires that the majority of the members of that committee must be constituent councillors. It is for the combined authority to determine the size of the committee, taking into account the political balance requirement. It will be serviced by officers of the combined authority, who will indeed need to have the necessary resources to make sure that it can discharge its duties.
As to whether decisions will open to the public, the minutes of the committees are public, except that personal and confidential information, as defined in the order, will remain unavailable to the public.
We have dealt with the issue of holding the mayoral elections on the same day as a general election. There may be some other questions that the noble Lord asked which I have not answered, in which case I will write to him. He can get up and ask me again, but the chances are that I will still say, “I will write to the noble Lord”.
Lord Shipley
May I just clarify the Minister’s very helpful comment on officers of the combined authority attending overview and scrutiny meetings? The officers of a combined authority will administer the work of the overview and scrutiny committee. The Minister may prefer to write on this, but can they be the same officers as those who are administering the combined authority? In other words, there is a question about the independence of advice that is given to the overview and scrutiny committee. Who decides, for example, what gets on to an agenda of a meeting and how do the members of the overview and scrutiny committee know what they should be discussing? Presumably, the officers of the combined authority who are managing the work of the overview and scrutiny committee will tell them what that is, but I hope that when guidance is issued, it will be made absolutely clear that an overview and scrutiny committee must be given the maximum information possible to enable it to do its job properly.
Lord Young of Cookham
I think I need to write to the noble Lord. I understand the point he is making, which is that there could be a conflict of interest on the part of the employees of the combined authority who may be servicing the O&S committee but may also be employees of the authority doing something else, so one needs some form of Chinese wall to make sure that the O&S committee gets the information it needs, even if that may embarrass some of its fellow employees on the combined authority.
The combined authority must appoint a scrutiny officer whose role is that of scrutiny, which is helpful. As I say, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord to amplify the issues he has raised about conflicts of interest, Chinese walls and so on. I commend the order.
Northern England: Opportunity and Productivity
Lord Shipley Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for initiating this debate. I add to her list of places in the north that voted to remain my own city of Newcastle upon Tyne.
I congratulate IPPR North on its incisive report. Its recommendations urging local enterprise partnership resilience audits in the face of Brexit and the creation of a northern Brexit negotiating committee to speak for the north in the absence of the devolved structures now available in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are critical. IPPR North is also right to identify the adoption of a place-based approach to industrial strategy, encouraging regional differentiation, co-ordinated investment and devolution as its basis and ensuring that all parts of the north and not just the big cities can grow.
A hard Brexit will damage the north’s economy profoundly, with fewer exports and fewer jobs as we exit the single market and the customs union. The north must keep access to the single market and the customs union. Over half of our exports go to the European Union, and the prospect of those exports queuing up at foreign borders because we have left the customs union is too dreadful to contemplate. Leaving the single market will create tariff barriers, which will result in lower exports.
Mention has been made of the northern powerhouse. The Government were right to create it as a flagship policy but it has to date suffered from being more flag than ship. However, the signs are encouraging, not least in the work of Transport for the North, whose role will inevitably relate not just to investment in transport infrastructure but to the wider economic development of the whole of the north.
I want to suggest to the Minister a six-point plan—which is not exclusive—to boost growth and productivity in the north. If there is no plan, the economy of the north risks being squeezed by the economic strength of London and the south-east in one direction and Scotland in the other, which could well see an economic resurgence if its wish to stay in the EU results in a referendum vote that means it leaves the UK.
Turning to the six points, first, I want to see the introduction of regional targets for the Department for International Trade for foreign direct investment, which is currently assessed only across the UK as a whole. I draw attention to the fact London got one-third of all new jobs from foreign direct investment in 2015-16.
Secondly, the Government should be encouraging the private sector to invest in the north to boost development. As an example, I pay tribute to Legal & General’s investment in Newcastle, including a £65 million investment in the Science Central site. This is good news, but we need more of it.
Thirdly, we need a major boost to our secondary schools, as there has been in London, which now has a much higher achievement rate than the north—and, of course, much higher funding per capita. The CBI demonstrated in its December report that that is a key factor in driving up productivity and therefore wages.
Fourthly, will the Government look at using some of the apprenticeship levy from April to promote employment and higher-level skills development in areas that have done less well since the crash?
Fifthly, the north’s universities need to work even more closely together to promote innovation across the whole of their sub-regions so that more people—not just those in the big cities—can benefit from their job creation.
Sixthly, the north needs a bigger share of the country’s communications investment in both transport infrastructure and digital support for SMEs to enable them to grow faster and export more. Its share has been far too low, as I think the Government now acknowledge.
In conclusion, the north has a huge cultural heritage, which we want to protect and promote. Much of that was forged by the Industrial Revolution. We need a new revolution, one that drives a sense of common purpose across the north to invest more, to make a success of devolution and to bridge the productivity divide. Places that feel left behind need new thinking. I hope the Minister will agree that to leave policy simply in the hands of the Treasury, which thinks only in terms of innovation driving growth, does not help the left-behind places. Those places need intervention to address the barriers of skills, poor connectivity and lack of investment.
Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Shipley Excerpts(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 123B and talk specifically about the pilot schemes, but I do share a number of the concerns the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, expressed. I have doubts about what is proposed but, on the assumption that they might go ahead, I will talk in some detail about the nature of the pilots that are being planned. I am grateful to the Royal Town Planning Institute for its advice on this matter. I say to the Minister that I have no intention of dividing the House, but I hope to help inform the Government’s thinking in response to the recent consultation.
Last week we had considerable debate on charges for planning applications relating to full cost recovery and greater flexibility in charging. A number of people said that private providers would be more expensive than planning authorities currently are. Government Amendment 120A reflects some changes since Committee stage and I welcome that movement. We now know that the pilot will be temporary and we know from government Amendment 121 that there must be a review of the pilot within a year of its termination. So, taken together, Amendments 120A and 121 will test the practicality and desirability of competition in the processing of planning applications, but not their determination. I welcome the Minister’s confirming a moment ago that there will be absolutely no role for that in determining planning applications, although on the next group of amendments I would like to say something about the need for a firewall to ensure that there is no connection between processing and determination. We know, too, that there will be a report within 12 months of the last of the pilots ceasing, which will set out the results and conclusions of the review.
If there are to be pilots to test whether more competition would help the planning system, it is in the best interests of good policy-making to test whether more resources alone would help. The problem with the pilot scheme as devised is that after the five years or so, it would be very difficult to work out whether competition had produced what the Government would hope were good results. This would make it very difficult to use it as the basis for rolling out the pilots further.
Amendment 123B seeks to address this issue, as it would pave the way for a parallel pilot scheme alongside the Government’s proposed pilot scheme. This parallel pilot would be designed to grant fee flexibility to local planning authorities in return for cast-iron commitments to reinvest greater income in the planning process. That could include information technology, greater joint working across councils, and the further training of staff towards professional accreditation. There would also be a need for a planning authority to demonstrate improving—or at least continued—high performance year on year.
In chapter 1 of their consultation document published in February, on which consultation closed on 15 April, the Government made some proposals which verge on this one in the context of devolution deals. The Government make particular reference to reforms which would be a fast-track service from the existing local authority for an increased fee, and competition as provided for in the Bill. While the first of these would arguably overlap with my proposal, it is too narrow a definition of reform and would not enable any satisfactory comparison with the competition pilots. For example, the competition pilots will not be limited to offering fast-track services. Therefore, I have concluded that for proper evaluation to take place, the impact of additional tied resources on its own should be tested alongside the impact of competition. Given that the whole initiative is a pilot programme, it seems strange to wish to limit it to one kind of pilot. There should be more than one kind of pilot.
Could the Government use the powers conferred by the Bill to operate a parallel pilot scheme of the kind I have outlined? That would meet a number of the problems and criticisms raised last week on Report, and could produce a more robust outcome for the Government’s proposed pilots. I would be very happy for the Minister simply to take the measure away and think about it. I do not expect an immediate answer because in any case, the Government have to respond to the consultation, which closed only a few days ago. A different kind of pilot based on fee flexibility could be important in helping the Government to achieve the robust pilots they are seeking.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I hope I gave a full explanation in my opening remarks of our approach to the DPRRC’s recommendations—where we have accepted and taken on board its comments, as well as those of your Lordships—and why we believe that Amendments 121CA and 135D are impractical. Amendment 121G repeats a provision that we have already laid.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talked about the figures on outsourcing and shared services in the impact assessment. The key point is that, in many services, local authorities have undertaken significant reform and shown significant cost reductions. Some examples are set out in the impact assessment. However, in respect of planning services, authorities have been slow to do such reform, which is why we want to go forward with these pilots.
Amendment 123B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, proposes an alternative pilot to test fee flexibility alongside the competition pilot scheme. I cannot accept this amendment because we already have the necessary powers and are already taking forward the proposal with the intention of evaluating its effectiveness. Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows us, through regulations, to set different fees for different local planning authorities, although Clause 141 of this Bill will make such an approach easier.
Our recent consultation paper included a proposal to test the provision of greater flexibility in fee setting, on top of our proposals for national increases in fees linked to inflation, where local authorities come forward with ambitious plans for reforms and improved performance. The noble Lord raised concerns that our proposals in the consultation are too narrow. The reference to a fast-track service was one example. We will explore a range of options for fee flexibility with areas and have started to have those conversations in some areas.
Lord Shipley
I thank the Minister for her response so far, but I want to be clear that I am talking about a measurable pilot, not one which is simply a set of options which may prove not to be measurable because they have not been set up properly. If a competition pilot is to take place, it has to be measurable; otherwise, the outcomes cannot be measured. Any fee flexibility pilot would also have to be measurable. The powers may be there already for the Government, but this has to be set up in a way that can be measured.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Our aim with these pilots is certainly to be able to measure and look at differing effectiveness. As the noble Lord rightly said, the consultation is still out, and we will obviously be coming back with further details, but our intention is certainly to test the effectiveness of the different approaches. Furthermore, recent devolution deals included a commitment to this effect, and discussions are starting with these areas.
I will respond to the points raised by my noble friend Lord True in the next group, but I can say now that we will use regulations to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain ethical and professional standards. Local planning authorities will retain responsibility for deciding the planning application, having received a report with a recommendation from the provider that the planning applicant chose to submit their application to for processing. As I say, I will speak a bit further about this in the next group.
I hope that noble Lords recognise in my opening comments and the government amendments that we have sought to be reasonable, to address key concerns and to implement, in an effective way, the recommendations of the DPRRC. I hope on this basis that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord True. I said a number of things in Committee on this group, and Amendment 121E in particular, about the independence of the advice being given, the role of planning officers employed by a council to comment on the report that has been written, and the importance of the general public understanding that independence and due probity is being followed at all points, because the issue of public trust is critical. For the public to have any confidence in the planning system, a robust firewall must be in place so that those writing reports are, and are seen to be, independent of applicants and subject to all the relevant codes of conduct that apply to professional planners.
It is vital that the people whose reports the community’s elected representatives are being asked to trust are people whom the public trust, too, especially if neither the public nor the council members are able to choose them. Local authorities can contract out these services, and some do, but they must nevertheless guarantee that alternative providers are subject to the same quality, accreditation, competencies and code of conduct that would apply in the public sector. Ensuring that independent providers are qualified to work in the public interest is a necessity, and must apply not just longer term but during the pilot period that we discussed under the previous group.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the points of both the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Shipley. I am concerned how it would be seen by the public generally, but also by those applicants who have paid for a report to be prepared, which may make a recommendation. The decision will certainly be made by the committee. That is more or less the position that operates now in the existing system. Sometimes, council planning officers’ recommendations are not accepted by the committee, and they may help appellants on appeal. However, if you are paying for that advice as an applicant, it creates a different ambience altogether, it seems to me. It makes the whole process rather more confusing and difficult for the applicant, as well as for the local authority. I hope that the noble Baroness will look again at how the process works, because it is fraught with danger for both the authority and public understanding of what is happening.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but when we are talking about public authorities’ land that may stretch the entire breadth of the country, the Government believe that it is in our interest to ensure that the Secretary of State takes that decision.
Lord Shipley
Before the Minister sits down, I point out that the Government are very critical of builders who hoard land, but are they critical of Whitehall departments that also hoard land? Is there a list, a register, of all the pieces of land the Minister is talking about? If power is to reside with the Secretary of State, the following question must be: how does the Secretary of State know what needs to be done? Is it not better to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord True, which gives the responsibility to initiate the procedure to the local authority?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry to say that I disagree with the noble Lord on his final point. We are indeed looking at the land that the Government hold at national level very carefully indeed. As the noble Lord will have seen, Table 1.12 in the Autumn Statement catalogues what each department is being expected to provide in land for housing and land surplus to requirements, which we will be looking to dispose of.
Housing and Planning Bill
Lord Shipley Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we now move on to the part of the Bill that is about housing development linked to applications for development control under the 2008 Act for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This series of amendments probes the provisions which will take the housing element of such projects—where they are linked to infrastructure projects—out of the hands of local authorities and allow people to make the application for development consent under the infrastructure system and to include the housing provision within that application.
The purpose of tabling these amendments is to ask some related questions. A very useful briefing note from the Department for Communities and Local Government, called the Housing and Planning Bill: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Housing, does answer some of the questions I had in my mind when I tabled these amendments. Nevertheless, some questions remain, and one fundamental issue has a big question mark against it.
Amendment 102CA would name the housing projects which are linked with the infrastructure projects “subsidiary”, which seems to me an appropriate word. It is important that they be seen to be subsidiary or ancillary and not a major part—even if they are 30% or 40% of the reason for the development. Housing ought not to be the reason for the development. Infrastructure projects are the reason for the development.
Amendment 102CC, to new subsection (4B) of Section 115 of the Planning Act 2008, states:
“‘Related housing development’ means development which … (a) consists of or includes the construction or extension of one or more”,
new dwellings. I take it that “consists of” is okay—it “consists of” housing or “includes” housing. What else is there? That is the question. I take it that the “what else” is not the infrastructure, but something else. Therefore, why do things other than housing need to be included?
Amendments 102CF and 102CG challenge the geographical reason for allowing people to include housing in an application for development consent. The briefing note on page five sets out clearly that the Government intend that there will be two reasons for allowing housing development. The functional need ought to be allowed. Paragraph 17 states that:
“Where housing is being provided on the basis of a functional need”,
the limit for the number of houses can be up to 500, which seems rather a lot, even for a functional need. Perhaps the Government can tell us under what circumstances an infrastructure development might also require 500 houses. But paragraph 16 states:
“Where housing is being provided on the basis of geographic proximity to an infrastructure project, the maximum amount of permanent housing that could be granted consent”,
is also 500 houses. I do not understand why the Government are going to allow a national infrastructure project to be put forward with up to 500 houses when the only connection between those houses and the project is geographical proximity: either adjacent or, as my Amendment 102CD puts it, “close to”—the briefing note says up to a mile away.
It seems that the planning permission for new housing estates of up to 500 houses—perhaps most are smaller—is being taken out of the hands of local planning authorities just because the estate in question is next to, or within a mile or so of, a new infrastructure project. I cannot understand the logic of this. I can understand why landowners might want to link them together and perhaps fund one out of the other. Five hundred houses, by any standards, is a big new housing development. It ought to be in the hands of the local planning authority. The guidance sets out that the Secretary of State, in making his decision on the application for development consent, will have to take account of the local plan and the national planning policy framework, and whether it is in a national park or ecologically significant, for example. All these things will need to be taken account of. Local planning authorities do that all the time. However, issues such as design, the relationship between the new development and the existing communities, local highways issues, access, or even Section 106 agreements for new bus services ought to be in the hands of the democratically elected local planning authorities, not put into the hands of the Secretary of State.
There are very good reasons why the national infrastructure planning system exists for national infrastructure projects. There are reasons that I can understand for housing being part of the project—when it is directly related to those projects because it is for people who are going to work there—and it is sensible to put in a planning application for development consent. However, I see no reason at all why local authorities should have this decision seized from them by the Secretary of State simply because a project is next to a new national infrastructure project, even if none of the people living in those houses is going to be associated with, connected with or working at the new development. It seems to be a step too far in the centralisation of the local planning functions of local authorities, and yet another move away from localism to centralism. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is associated with Clause 144 stand part, and I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Greaves has said. I regard this as a very important issue because it effectively cuts out local authorities from the planning process on a nationally important infrastructure decision. Simply permitting an applicant to go straight to the Secretary of State to secure approval seems to me to be the wrong approach. What my noble friend said helps us to solve the problem.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the basis of his amendment. This clause will allow the Secretary of State to grant development consent for housing that is related to a nationally significant infrastructure project. I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the Government’s intentions and the protections that are in place to ensure that this provision is appropriately restricted.
Clause 144 allows consent to be granted for housing where the housing is functionally linked to an infrastructure project—for example, housing needed for employees at the project. It also allows housing to be consented if it is close to the infrastructure. Any housing that is granted consent within the nationally significant infrastructure regime must be secondary to the infrastructure by satisfying the requirements of being appropriately linked by function or location. The clause will not allow projects that are housing-led.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, indicated that he felt that responsibility for granting consent for such housing should lie with local authorities, not the Secretary of State. We believe that this would inhibit developers from realising some significant benefits. For example, a key aim of the Planning Act 2008 was to provide for a single consenting regime. This clause will mean that developers do not have to make a further separate application to the local authority for housing as well as their application to the Secretary of State for consent for the infrastructure. We believe that this strikes the right balance between the two.
It is very important that we recognise that the development of infrastructure projects may well bring important new opportunities to develop housing that were not previously available. A new road or a rail project, or improvements to existing projects, can make land available for housing development that might not previously have been suitable. Although there are only a limited number of nationally significant infrastructure projects that seek consent each year—49 projects have been consented since 2010—the clause offers an opportunity to provide a small but important contribution to the provision of new housing.
The Government have ensured that safeguards will be in place so that existing local and national planning policies will not be undermined. For example, as the noble Lord said, we have made clear in draft guidance that the amount of housing that is likely to be consented will be limited to 500 dwellings. As I have said, we believe that that may be appropriate if some infrastructure projects create new opportunities for housing. Existing planning policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework—for example, those that may limit development in designated areas, and policies set out in local plans—are likely to be important and relevant considerations that will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when decisions are taken.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that local authorities and interested parties can play a full role in the process leading up to any decision by the Secretary of State under the Planning Act regime for deciding nationally significant infrastructure. In particular, local authorities can produce what are known as local impact reports, which set out the impacts of the development in their area. Such reports are specifically identified as something the Secretary of State must have regard to when taking a decision.
The noble Lord asked why we say “includes housing”. “Includes” means that related development can include local infrastructure. The nationally significant infrastructure planning regime already requires significant local engagement in consultation, as I said. Applicants are required to engage with and consult local communities and local authorities from the outset, and developers will be expected to engage with local authorities on the housing element of their scheme in the same rigorous manner.
I hope that my responses have provided reassurances to the noble Lord, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that it is late in the day to be contributing to this amendment but I have put my name to an amendment in the very last group, so I am simply delaying myself getting home. I want to remind the Committee about the findings of the Select Committee on the Built Environment, on which I have the privilege to sit, and the very worrying evidence that we heard from planning departments across the country about their ability to recruit experienced professional planning staff and about their viability for the future.
I absolutely support the concerns about this proposal, and I think that Amendment 102D is well worth supporting as a safeguard in terms of the moral hazard issue, but I think that we also need to take account of the fact that at the moment there is a real shortage of suitably skilled and experienced planning staff. If we set up alternative economies in a commercial planning capability, we will find that local authorities are rapidly hollowed out in terms of their planning capacity. It is very close to that at the moment. They have next to no specialist planning skills in heritage, environment and other areas. They are finding it difficult to afford planning staff of their own. So in this proposition we need to take account of the viability of planning departments for the future if skilled and experienced staff are likely to be attracted towards a commercial planning capacity in a competitive sense.
We also need to think about whether we are trying to solve the right problem. There is a real issue about the quality and capacity of planning departments across the country. We saw in our work with the Select Committee impressive alternative models. Local authorities gathered together to create more critical mass and to allow themselves to maintain a range of specialist planning officers. These authorities had voluntarily contracted out their planning support to commercial organisations.
Importantly—and here I disagree violently with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, a rare event in my experience—the planning authority was very much in the driving seat. The worry I have about these proposals is that if you are paying a fee to a commercial provider of planning-support services you will expect them to be on your side. They will be professional and I hope that a quality-assurance process will be put in place to ensure that professional standards are maintained.
As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the reality is that when you are in front of the jury you will have your man arguing your case, not the local authority’s man helping the local authority’s elected officers take a dispassionate look at what the decision in the public interest should be. As I say, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am a great fan of the planning system, which is one of the last genuinely democratic processes in this country. It is the responsibility of the local authority and the officers who support it to take a decision in the interests of the local community, balancing all the economic, social, environmental and other issues. I fear that if we do not handle this set of changes carefully we will find that we have tipped the balance too far in the direction of the developer.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I have two amendments in about half an hour from now and I am conscious that we have reached a point where virtually all the issues around Clause 145 are being discussed. The noble Baroness has rightly identified that the balance is about to be tipped. I hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham: what exactly is the problem that the Government are seeking to solve? Unless the problem is properly defined, the solution can ultimately give rise to a whole set of new problems that have not been forecast.
There is a real issue about being able to dissociate the democratic decision from the designated person who is writing the recommendation. This was put so well by the noble Lord, Lord True, who rightly defined that the process of making a decision is dependent on what the person who writes the recommendation actually says. It is a whole and a continuum. It is not a function separate from making the decision.
A further issue of major concern to me relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was talking about earlier. It is wrong in principle to privatise public regulatory services. That is now happening. There are issues around cost, as to whether it would be more expensive to go down that route, but the principle of a planning decision in practice being privatised is a major issue about which we must be very careful. A designated person who is writing a recommendation has to be independent and to be seen to be independent.
I have concluded that Clause 145 is now not fit for purpose and should be withdrawn in its entirety. If the Government can explain how they can bring it back at Report better than it now is, meeting the public interest test of independence, we might be willing to look at it—but at the moment I see no evidence base that convinces me that Clause 145 should remain part of the Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to an extremely interesting debate. Before I respond to the specific amendments, perhaps I can make some broad comments, although I will try to keep them brief.
We all want a planning system that is fit for the 21st century: one that can effectively support the delivery of homes that people need, and one that is efficient, responsive and resilient. To ensure this, there have been calls for greater flexibility in the way that fees are set, provided that any changes are linked directly to the quality of service.
We want to address resourcing concerns, but the answer is not simply to ask developers to pay for all local authority costs that go unchecked. The level of planning fees is one side of the resourcing equation. How planning applications are processed is just as important: continually transforming processes to drive down costs and deliver the most effective service possible.
Currently, local planning authorities have a monopoly on processing applications for planning permission which denies the user choice and does not incentivise service improvement and cost reduction. My noble friend Lord Deben made a strong case for why we need to look at this area. Local authorities can do more to transform their planning departments. Many have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, identified. Some have introduced new ways of operating through outsourced and shared service approaches and shown that performance can be improved and costs reduced—but more should be following their lead. We believe that it is incumbent on us to test new ways to improve the planning system. Therefore, we want to use the pilots to test the benefits of introducing competition to processing planning applications.
Clause 145 will give the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to introduce pilot schemes for competition in the processing of applications for planning permission. Regulations will set out the legal framework and the detailed rules for how the pilot schemes will operate. Clauses 145 to 148 set out the scope of what can and cannot be included in the regulations.
Let me now try to be clear on a number of points. This is about competition for the processing of applications, not the determination of applications. I can assure noble Lords that the democratic determination of planning applications will remain with local planning authorities during the pilots, and that they will not be able to delegate this function to private sector providers. We do not intend to make a report or recommendation from a designated provider to a local planning authority about whether or not the authority should approve the planning application in any way binding, and the authority will be able to reject the recommendation and set out its reasons for doing so. Local authorities will continue to determine planning applications, as they currently do.
Reports from the authority’s officers to a planning committee are not currently binding on the committee. Similarly, reports from a designated provider making a recommendation about how an application should be determined will not be binding. Planning committees or officers taking decisions under delegated authority will be able to reject the recommendation—although, of course, they will need to set out the reason for doing so. The public will be able to comment on planning applications in pilot areas, just as they do now, irrespective of who is processing the application.
We are not forcing local authorities to privatise or outsource their processing service. In pilot areas, the authority will keep its service, but with other providers able to compete with it to process applications in the area. If the authority’s service is the best, why would applicants not still choose it? We are not about to let just anyone become a designated provider. We expect that regulations will require those selected to meet high professional standards and not process applications in which they have an interest.
Lord Shipley
Can the Minister confirm whether an independent council planning officer who is employed by that council will be able to write a critique of the recommendation that has been written by the designated person? This takes up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If it is simply a report written by the designated person, how will it be known that it is accurate—and will an independent council planning officer be able to challenge it?