19:15 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
20:55 - Division on Amendment 16 - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 16 disagreed.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Localism Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 10 : Fire and rescue authorities: charging
Amendment 1
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I take that point but, even if it is “only because”, what else might a decision-maker do that you have to take account of if you can ignore all of the things that are described in this provision? That seems to be the fundamental problem.
My noble friend Lord Snape asked: what is predetermination? As I understand it, predetermination is having a closed mind at the point when you make a decision. Is that not important, because if people are coming to local councils seeking decisions which they expect to be rationally made—whether on planning, licensing or anything else—are they not entitled to have a case that is properly made and not fettered by somebody ignoring all of that process at the point when the decision is made? That seems to be the key difference between predetermination and predisposition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that people will always have their pet subjects, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Predisposition means having a view that, other things being equal, this is what you support and this is what you do not, and it does not preclude you from having, for example, manifesto commitments. That is reflective of the current position. The problem with the clause, for some of us at least, is that it unbalances that decision. It may give clearer protections or guidance to councillors in respect of what they can and cannot do but it does not address the other side of that equation: the circumstances where somebody has a closed mind and would seek to exercise judgment on something when they should not. That seems very important to me.
Things are not helped by the demise of the Standards Board for England, which set out guidance on all of this, but I understand that there is also legal precedent and case law around all of this. My noble friend Lord Sewel raised the point about collective decisions. There is nothing wrong with a party group sitting around and having discussion on an issue. The key is that when you come to the point of making that decision—whether it is in the council chamber, the committee chamber or elsewhere—the mind is at least ajar. I think that was the terminology that was used.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said that councillors have long walked this difficult line, and she is absolutely right. I agree and, in our view, the line does not need to be changed. Yet the terms of this clause are potentially changing it and that is the problem we are seeking to address by this provision. Our position is as follows: we support the proposition that those who have a closed mind on an issue should not participate in decision-making and could invalidate it if they did. We understand that this is also the Government's position, from debates on previous stages of the Bill where we have had amendments around this. It may be particularly relevant to planning and to other decisions as well.
We differentiate predetermination from predisposition and understand that the Government also do that. Having clarity on the scope and protections that this gives to councillors is to be encouraged but issues of a closed mind or otherwise are properly to be assessed when formal decisions are to be taken. We understand that this is also the Government’s position. The problem is that, in framing the scope and protections for local councillors, there must not be opportunities for those with closed minds to have their actions and utterances ignored in evaluating whether they had already predetermined the matter when making decisions. These are matters of probity.
If it is right that we agree on those propositions about the difference between predisposition and predetermination—determined at the point when the decision is made—we should be focused on how we achieve the legal construct that deals with that. That is the real matter before us and the matter in this amendment. In this regard, we consider that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Hart, achieves those objectives. However, we are very clear that the clause as it stands makes things worse and muddies the waters on principles and issues that I think we are not apart on.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have skilfully proposed this amendment, as it has given me the opportunity to research the issue for myself—with an open mind—and to provide further elucidation to the House. I hope that I can prevail upon the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with his open mind.
I think that there is general agreement on the mischief that Clause 25 seeks to address: that councillors and candidates are receiving overly cautious advice from a variety of sources. All noble Lords accept the need to engage with the electorate, and I agree entirely with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the courts. The courts do not have a problem at all; it is the advice being given that is the mischief.
I will give an example to show how far this culture has spread, not from local government but rather from advice issued by Friends of the Earth about the planning process. One would imagine that that organisation would be keen for the public to engage with councillors, not just to put their views to the councillor but to seek the councillor’s view. Yet the advice states that,
“councillors on the planning committee are not allowed to express their view until the decision is made”.
When advice from expert campaigning groups such as Friends of the Earth is risk-averse, it is clearly time to act. My noble friend Lord Greaves also told us about different councils having different rules and the problems that that causes.
In the light of the debate during previous stages, most noble Lords clearly have no difficulty with the difference between predisposition and predetermination but it may be helpful if I remind the House what predetermination is. Predetermination, which can be actual or apparent, is where a councillor’s mind is closed to the merits of any arguments which differ from their own about an issue on which they are making a decision, such as an application for planning permission. The councillor makes a decision on the issues without taking them all into account.
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hart, for the time he has taken to explain carefully the problem to me in private. He described a situation where a bigoted person states publically, and with the protection of Clause 25, that he is strongly against some development. He is then on the committee that determines the application but says nothing, then votes against the development. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said much the same. The noble Lord, Lord Hart, is right that nothing can be done, but the same would apply if the councillor was covertly bigoted—that is, if he said nothing at any point but still voted against and always intended to, no matter what argument was put forward. Perhaps he is racist and would never ever support an accommodation unit for asylum seekers. My own view, for what it is worth, is that in reality very few councillors operate with a closed mind.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this fascinating debate and to the Minister for his detailed response. I shall respond briefly, attempting to avoid any indication of exacting purity that may offend the noble Lord, Lord True, or indeed any other form of reprehensible purity on this matter.
The Minister indicated that there is nothing wrong with the common law rules, and I respectfully agree with him. The problem, the Minister said, is the erroneous advice that is being given to local councillors up and down the land. The problem with that analysis is that, if the advice is the erroneous advice, we should deal with that advice. Let us not amend the common law in a way that changes the current position—and changes it by excluding from relevance the legal material that can demonstrate that there is unlawful predetermination.
Earl Attlee
May I explain the advantage of Clause 25 and the way that it is drafted? If I was a councillor and engaging, as a layman, with officials who were giving me advice, I would be able to produce the words in Clause 25 and say, “It says here that I can express a view”, and there would be very little that officials could do to counteract that.
Lord Pannick
I understand the point and am grateful to the Minister. However, the clause introduces clarity by amending the common law, which the Minister is concerned to maintain. The clause does not maintain the existing common law rules, which the Minister considers entirely adequate. The clause excludes from consideration anything that is said or done prior to the council meeting at which the issue is to be discussed, however extreme the previous statement may be. I entirely accept that what the councillor said prior to the council meeting may not be determinative of whether there is unlawful predetermination, but it must be relevant. That is the objection to Clause 25: it purports, in the Minister’s words, to restate the common law, which the Minister regards as entirely appropriate and unexceptionable. What it actually does is amend the existing common law in a way that will prevent real cases of predetermination being brought and succeeding.
Real concern was expressed in this debate that it is absolutely vital that local councillors should be able to express their views on matters powerfully and strongly if they wish. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Greaves, made this point. I entirely agree with them that that is the common law position. The cases make it absolutely clear that local councillors deciding any matter are not impartial in the sense required of a judge; they have political allegiances, their politics involve policies and they are entitled to express their views—of course they are. The case of Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in 2009, covered from page 83 of Volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports, is the leading Court of Appeal judgment. It says that any local councillor who expresses his views powerfully and strongly on any view is not guilty of unlawful predetermination so long as he is prepared to keep an open mind when he goes to the council meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked for reassurance in relation to the role of party groups and party whips in local government. That, too, has been considered by the courts. In the same case of Lewis v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, the Court of Appeal approved an earlier judgment in 1985 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—then Mr Justice Woolf—where he said:
“I would have thought that it was almost inevitable, now that party politics play so large a part in local government, that the majority group on a council would decide on the party line in respect of the proposal. If this was to be regarded as disqualifying the district council from dealing with the planning application, then if that disqualification is to be avoided, the members of the planning committee at any rate will have to adopt standards of conduct which I suspect will be almost impossible to achieve in practice”.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I will just add a few brief things. My noble friend reminds me of one or two things which I had thankfully forgotten about. I was trying to remember how many amendments I actually put to this chapter of that Bill when it came. That is also something I had forgotten about, which is something that happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite rightly said that councils have to welcome and encourage petitions. But what is really important is the seriousness with which they treat them and deal with them when they come. You can set up as many bureaucratic, complex, legalistic schemes as you like, but if people do not treat the petitions seriously it is just going through the motions and wasting time and energy. If people treat petitions seriously you do not need a complex, bureaucratic, top-down—and, I have to say, pretty patronising—piece of legislation like Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. I note with some wry amusement that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is desperately trying to hang on to this classic piece of new Labour nonsense, which frankly has not improved the situation of petitions in any council in the country. Those who take them seriously, take them seriously; those who do not, do not.
This is eight pages of primary legislation telling councils in great detail how to deal with petitions. I, along with my noble friend, pay tribute to the Minister at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who listened to a great deal of what we had said—it was 12 pages of nonsense before we started, and between us we managed to persuade the civil servants and the powers that be in the then Government at least to take some of it out. As I told the noble Baroness at the time, if the Government simply want to tell councils to have a scheme for dealing with petitions that deals with them seriously, they could do so in half a page of legislation, not eight pages. I have been through this and reminded myself of the huge amount of nonsense in it. I will not detain—or should I say entertain—your Lordships’ House with any more of this tonight, but it really does deserve to go.
The one point that I will raise relates to Section 16 of the 2009 Act, which is the requirement to call officers to account. I do not know how often, if ever, this has been used since this part of the Act was commenced. At the time, we had a long debate, and in our view it was totally inappropriate for officers of the council to be hauled up and held to account before the public in this way. The people who should be held to account are the elected councillors: those who run the council and who have been elected by the people to be responsible and accountable to the people. Clearly, they will need support from officers, and if officers are not performing their jobs properly, the elected councillors are the ones who should take a grip of the situation and sort it out. That is a fundamental principle, in our view, but we could not persuade the Government at the time that that was the case. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Shutt is, I assume, going to resist this amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. Clause 46 of the Bill repeals the duty on principal local authorities in England and Wales to have a petitions scheme and the associated provisions. Amendment 15 would omit this clause, therefore reinstating the duty, and Amendment 49 would then amend the original legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to when he mentioned the eight pages. Incidentally, I have a note that there would be still four or five pages left of that, including the requirement to call officers to account. So a lot of it would still be there.
While the intention behind the amendments to ensure that councils treat the receipt of petitions sensibly and appropriately is laudable, I am not persuaded that reinstating this prescriptive and burdensome duty, albeit in a revised form, is either necessary or desirable. The revised duty proposed would remove Section 11 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, which provides for principal local authorities to have petition schemes, but it is clear that they would continue to need such schemes, given that Amendment 49 includes several references to petition schemes. Even with this change, the revised duty would mean a significant new burden on local authorities. The effect of subsection (6) of the proposed new section is that the statutory petitions schemes would have to go into far more detail than is currently required about how particular categories of petition will be treated.
In addition, the extension of the statutory duty to all categories of petition—including mayoral petitions and council tax petitions—which the amendment creates, will create further additional burdens, as a scheme would then need to provide for different processes for different types of petition. To reinstate the current overly prescriptive duty not with a clean sheet but with a confused mishmash of some retained elements, with some changes and some provisions dropped, is not at all helpful. We trust local authorities to make the best choices for their local areas and to respond to residents’ concerns in a locally appropriate way. However, how that looks should be a matter for local discretion, not central prescription.
We simply do not believe that we need to reinstate this duty in order to force local authorities to have a petitions scheme, any more than we believe that we need to tell local authorities how to respond to petitions from their own residents.
The noble Lord, Lord True, asked whether the Government still support the concept of petitions. Let me make it clear that they absolutely support and encourage the use of petitions but at a local and not at a national level. It seems to me that people want to put up a petition in a post office or whatever. They do not want to have to scratch about wondering what the proper way to organise a petition is for that council. They want to get on with the petition, get the names together and get on with it. That is how it is in democracy and how it is in local areas. In the circumstances, I trust that this amendment will not be pursued.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, can be forgiven for a sense of déjà vu since the issue has arisen, but he should have looked at the amendment rather than the Act. The amendment would substantially reduce what I entirely agree was a ridiculously overprescriptive regime for the presentation of petitions. It simply provides for councils to have a scheme to deal with petitions and is not about the detail of how petitions are to be presented, except that they would be acceptable in electronic or written forms. After that, it would be very much a matter of local discretion as to how they would be dealt with. There is no intention in the amendment to prescribe how petitioners should present their case. It is not at all a bureaucratic substitute and is significantly shorter than the three volumes that the noble Lord would have us believe the Act required.
The difficulty is that, by abolishing the provision without any alternative, the Government are sending a signal that petitions do not seem to be important. They are important and it is unfortunate that the Government are sending a signal to the contrary by neglecting this when Parliament is now adopting a procedure, for good or ill, which appears to place considerable value on petitions. However, it is clear that there is insufficient support for me to test the opinion of the House. I regret what has happened and I hope that at some point the issue will be revisited. In the mean time, at the very least I hope that Ministers will use their best endeavours to encourage councils, even if not on a statutory basis, to promote the use of petitions as an important element in local democracy. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, this is a group of several amendments. They are government, minor, technical and consequential amendments to the Bill that are necessary to correct some minor errors, provide clarity of expression in places and ensure that clauses operate as intended. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of all of these amendments. It was rather hard-going trying to work through them all, as they came through fairly late in the day. However, we are happy to accept them on the basis that, as he said, they are minor, technical and consequential, and on the basis of an assurance I hope he will give us that they do not change policy, processes or, in particular, the protections for local authorities that were achieved by the sterling work of the Front Bench opposite—particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has been dealing with EU fines. I would just like to ask the noble Lord where things stand on the draft policy statement. I am not clear whether that has become a finalised policy statement and what its status is. Subject to that, I am happy to support these amendments.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I believe that work on the policy statement is still going on, but I am happy to confirm that these amendments are exactly as I have indicated.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(i) have caused or contributed to the infraction of EU law concerned; or(ii) have caused or contributed, or will continue to cause or contribute, to the continuation of that infraction;”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(i) have caused or contributed to the infraction of EU law concerned; or(ii) have caused or contributed, or will continue to cause or contribute, to the continuation of that infraction;”
Lord Shutt of Greetland
“(8) Sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (contributions regulations for a financial year to be in force by preceding 1 January) does not apply to regulations under that paragraph in their application to the financial year beginning in 2012 so far as they make provision related to the operation of section 47 of that Act as amended by this Act.”
Earl Attlee
“Local authority, statutory undertakers’ and National Trust land
(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 128(3) (order authorising compulsory acquisition of local authority or statutory undertakers’ land subject to special parliamentary procedure if representation made by the authority or statutory undertakers and not withdrawn)—
(a) after paragraph (a) (but before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the representation contains an objection to the compulsory acquisition of the land,”, and(b) in paragraph (b) (condition that representation has not been withdrawn) for “representation” substitute “objection”.(3) In section 130(3) (order authorising compulsory acquisition of certain National Trust land subject to special parliamentary procedure if representation made by National Trust and not withdrawn)—
(a) after paragraph (a) (but before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the representation contains an objection to the compulsory acquisition of the land,”, and(b) in paragraph (b) (condition that representation has not been withdrawn) for “representation” substitute “objection”.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the need for this amendment emerged following the first decision under the regime a little over a week ago when it became clear that the Planning Act 2008 contains a drafting flaw that could have serious consequences for the regime if not corrected. Under compulsory purchase law, local authorities, statutory undertakers and the National Trust have special protection from proposals to compulsorily acquire their land. Where they object to a compulsory purchase order, and do not withdraw that objection, the order is subject to special parliamentary procedure—an involved, complex and often lengthy process which can add six to nine months to the timetable.
The first decision under the regime has demonstrated that the Planning Act 2008 has inadvertently widened the grounds on which special parliamentary procedure is engaged. Any representation by a relevant body on any aspect of the development consent order not limited to compulsory acquisition can trigger SPP. This means that many more projects will need to go through the SPP than do at present, with implications for growth and jobs. Government Amendment 53, therefore, seeks to correct the drafting of the Planning Act to bring it into line with compulsory purchase law as it operates under the town and country planning system.
Let me be absolutely clear on this for the benefit of the House. We are absolutely not seeking to lessen the important protections for land belonging to those bodies, and indeed this amendment would not prevent the National Trust, for example, from invoking SPP where a development consent order would grant consent for its land to be compulsorily acquired. The amendment seeks only to correct an error in the 2008 Act, thereby ensuring that the compulsory purchase regime is consistent across both the 2008 Act and the major infrastructure planning regimes. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his amendment and allowing me to speak to my three amendments in this grouping. He has agreed to respond after this, and it is very welcome that we can do it in this way.
I shall just make a very small comment on government Amendment 53. While I welcome the amendment—it is good to see that the Government recognise that some changes have to be made to the Planning Act in this regard—it does nothing for the point that I shall come on to shortly. In a wider sense, the special parliamentary procedure seems to be an additional safeguard in the 21st century, with a rather heavier touch, as I shall come back to several times, than the approach taken in the Harbours Act or the Transport and Works Act orders, which are two of the principal order-making regimes that the Planning Act draws on and replaces.
I turn to the amendments in my name. The House will recall that, both in Committee and on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and I moved, and spoke in support of, a number of quite technical arguments, which we thought were pretty important to the Bill, designed to make a number of changes to the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 dealing with the new regime for considering national infrastructure projects, which are currently operated by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The Planning Act is a distinct improvement on the many regimes that we had before for the types of infrastructure that it replaces, and I think that it is settling down.
My concern, which I expressed previously and will have to return to shortly tonight, is that this Bill should have gone further and made more changes to the 2008 Act that are either a necessary or logical consequence of the IPC's abolition and the return of decisions to Ministers or are simply required to make the 2008 Act work better. I have been briefed in particular by the National Infrastructure Planning Association, which has people with great experience in this field. I welcome the Government's intention to keep the new regime under review, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister tonight a little more as to quite what they are going to review and when.
The House will recall that the Minister, Greg Clark MP, said in a Written Ministerial Statement that the Government are,
“listening to industry, representative groups and others using the system … and will be exploring opportunities for improvement to ensure the system has the right mix of certainty, flexibility and efficiency”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/11; col. 73WS.]
That is good. In the impact assessment for the Bill’s provisions on major infrastructure projects, published in January this year, we are told that, in relation to the policy behind the preferred options, which is now reflected in the Bill,
“It will be reviewed 04/2014”.
I would like to hear from the Minister how this review will take place.
Before discussing in more detail the issues focused in these amendments, I want to mention a very recent development that appears to be highly relevant. Apparently,
“The European Union is concerned that the single market is not operating effectively because of a lack of integrated energy, transport and digital infrastructure”—
I certainly support that view—
“and is also not moving to a secure, low-carbon energy future quickly enough”.
On 19 October, only a couple of weeks ago, the European Commission launched two new proposed regulations to address this: the “Connecting Europe Facility”, which is about to spend €50 billion on all three sectors of infrastructure, which is a great deal of money; and a focus on energy infrastructure, for which the Commission will require new authorisation regimes because such projects will have to be subject to a special “permit granting process”. It is a bit complicated, but €9 billion has been earmarked for energy projects.
The Government will have to change regulations or legislation to allow these internationally significant infrastructure projects—which are apparently called ISIPs, as opposed to NSIPs or something—that will sit above, or instead of, the Planning Act regime for nationally significant projects. There are various processes and timetables set out for this and the pre-application consultation requirements are quite prescriptive. I understand that all these are required to be in place by 1 September 2013, which is only nine months after the regulation is due to come into force. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to do this and make sure that the money being offered from the EU is available.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting between his officials and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, between Report and now. We had a very useful meeting and I take the opportunity to thank Ministers and officials for the very helpful discussions. We should have had the meeting some time ago, but we did not—as was said at Report. However, I hope that, even so, we can make progress.
Turning to the amendments themselves, I should say that Amendment 87 relates to the Minister’s amendment about development consent orders and the need to have special parliamentary procedures where there are objections. As the Minister said, it could take about nine months extra if one had to go through these procedures. I still wonder why we have to go through these procedures when there should be a single consents regime with a harmonised set of requirements and procedures, which I call a one-stop shop. I compare the complexity and difficulty of this with the transport and works orders and the harbours orders.
On Report, the Minister referred to the Planning Act drawing on long-standing and well-established protections from compulsory purchase orders for certain types of land. He thought that our proposals then would significantly weaken them, but I do not accept his reference to a two-tier system—why it should go further than happens with the TWA and the harbours order. The House will recall that the only project so far to be approved by the IPC, which is Covanta's proposed incinerator in Bedfordshire, will now have to be approved by this House and the other House under SPP. A lot of people may not like these incinerators but that has gone through a process and, again, will be subject to six to nine months’ extra delay. I hope that the Minister can indicate that these issues will be reviewed in the light of experience.
The next amendment in the group, Amendment 88, refers to the regulations made under Section 150, which deal with construction-related consents in England. Again, we discussed this quite thoroughly on Report—so much for having a one-stop shop, as there are still up to 42 other consents required from regulators in England and a further 36 in Wales. I still have not discovered why there are so many extra ones in Wales but it may be that the noble Earl will take the view that it does not matter very much. Again, the point is that it would be very good for those developing new projects to be able to reduce the number of these other consents which they have to get. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give some kind of timetable and a commitment to reviewing this number, and even to produce a report to Parliament every year for the next few years. That could challenge his colleagues in other departments on whether they really can be brought underneath this umbrella of the one-stop shop.
Finally, on Amendment 89, again, we have discussed the creation of criminal offences in some detail but it is still a worry that the types of offences which can be introduced through this process are not sufficient for the types of projects and offences which might be required. Again, that provides a much greater limit than the Transport and Works Act orders do, which is why I wanted to see whether we could include railways and construction in tidal waters. One example which springs to mind is the question of trespass during construction, which could well occur on the high-speed line—assuming that it gets built—or on some of the offshore wind farms, if people can get around there. Trespass is a very difficult thing to stop if you do not have the right regulations, and it would be good to see whether the Minister would be able to extend the existing criminal offences to the two issues in this amendment.
To sum up, we have made progress on these issues in discussions on the Bill but we have certainly not gone as far as I would have liked to see. However, is the Minister prepared to tell us a little more about the issues that I have raised and about three things in particular? First, there is the impact assessment on how the Planning Act 2008 has worked in respect of projects through the IPC and its successor, which I believe is supposed to be there in 2014. Secondly, there is how this connecting Europe facility will work and whether the Government are keen that projects here should get the extra €9 billion that will be available for energy alone. Finally, can I press him to have an earlier review and a progress report to reduce significantly those 42 consents, plus the 36 in Wales?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall be brief. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley for spotting a difficulty and the Government for responding with their Amendment 53, which seeks to deal with that. My noble friend Lord Berkeley, my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have raised a number of profound and important issues about how the new system is working, the need for a one-stop shop, the connecting Europe facility and how we will take advantage of that, and the special parliamentary procedures, but I am not sure that we are going to solve all those issues tonight. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but if he is able to confirm that there is a review under way, that seems to be the arena in which these very important issues can be picked up and addressed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments for their contribution to the debate on these important issues. I thought we had an excellent debate on Report, and I am grateful to the noble Lords for their time at the meeting we had a week ago to further discuss these matters. I am happy to adhere to correct procedure, and that is to allow noble Lords to move the amendments before giving a response.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to developments in the EU; this is developing policy and I will have to write to him on that point. Noble Lords have already explained the amendments in this group at some length, but I will briefly summarise. Amendment 87 would remove Sections 128 to 132 of the 2008 Act, which made provisions relating to the compulsory acquisition of special types of land. Amendment 88 seeks to amend Section 150 of the Act, so that it applies only in relation to land in Wales. Amendment 89 would extend the existing provisions of the Localism Bill in relation to the creation of offences in a development consent order so that offences could be created in respect of railways and off-shore development in addition to those already provided for within the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, gave the example of trespass during construction. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said and I agree that these matters need further consideration. These are complex issues and we will need to think on them carefully in the light of the new regime’s vanguard cases.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 62 to 67. These amendments are in response to two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, on Report: Amendments 96 and 103. I know that my noble friend Lord True also has an interest in these matters. Those amendments related to obligations on the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made at consultation where he proposes to bring forward a mayoral development corporation. I am happy to say that we have looked carefully at the case put forward by the noble Lords for amending the Bill and propose to introduce the following changes.
Amendment 61 requires the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough where those comments relate to the mayor’s proposals for a mayoral development area. Amendment 62 requires the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough where those comments relate to an MDC’s proposed planning functions.
Amendments 64 and 65 are minor and technical relating to Clause 203 and put right minor inaccuracies arising from changes to the Bill. Amendment 66 would require the mayor to publish his reasons for not accepting comments made by an affected borough, where those comments relate to an MDC’s proposals for non-domestic rate relief. Amendment 67 defines “affected local authority”.
Together these amendments would put an affected borough on the same footing as the London Assembly with the regard to the duty on the mayor to respond directly to any concerns it may raise. I trust they address my noble friend’s concerns. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I beg to move government Amendment 76 and speak to Amendments 77 to 83.
Your Lordships agreed to government amendments to provide that a council tax referendum could not be triggered solely due to expenditure that had been supported in a local referendum. However, the agreement reached at Report stage to remove local referendums from the Bill means that any link between council tax referendums and local referendums is no longer relevant. These amendments, therefore, remove the references to local referendums from Schedule 5. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, these amendments come in Schedule 5 which deals with referendums, including council tax referendums. I apologise at this late hour for raising an issue which has only just come to light in relation to council tax referendums; that is, a communication from the Electoral Commission— received extremely late in the day, it must be said—raising concerns about the procedures. I had a word with the noble Earl previously under the misapprehension that the noble Baroness would be replying to this amendment. I am not asking for a definitive answer tonight, because I do not know whether the noble Earl has actually seen the communication from the Electoral Commission. However, it was recommending that the proposed arrangements that any council tax referendums should commence from next year—Spring 2012—should not take place and that referendums should not be required to be held until 2013. There has been a principle, apparently accepted for several years now, that regulations including conduct rules should be clear no later than six months in advance of the date of the first poll to which they will apply. It is clearly of the view that that will not be possible in this case, as it has seen only a very small part of the draft secondary legislation which will be required for referendums. It has not seen details specifically for these referendums. There are a number of factors, including the fact that there might be multiple referendums held because of the variety of precepting authorities which would be potentially involved in the issue of such referendums as and when these might be held.
The Electoral Commission’s assessment is that,
“there is a high level of risk that any council tax referendums held in Spring 2012 may not be well run … There is not in our view enough time before then to adequately ensure”—
I notice it is splitting its infinitives—
“that regulations are well drafted and electoral administrators are properly prepared, and campaigners are ready to engage with others”.
Therefore, it is asking for,
“a clear commitment to not hold these referendums until Spring 2013”.
It makes the helpful suggestion that we might table amendments, but of course we are out of time to table amendments. It raises questions about how the Electoral Commission works and I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy has already raised questions about that. However, it makes an additional point that has been touched on in previous discussions on the funding of referendums and whether the rules about donations and campaign spending and so on ought to be brought into play to deal with these referendums.
It is very late. I am not expecting the Minister to give a definitive answer but I would be grateful if he could assure the House that these matters will be considered. Obviously, I expect the Government to take seriously the views of the Electoral Commission. In practice, I suspect that next year there will not be many councils that, given the general state of play, will be proposing council tax levels such as to trigger potential referendums. We cannot be certain, of course, but it is probably unlikely. There is little to be lost and indeed much to be gained, I venture to suggest, by looking closely into these matters and responding positively to the belated recommendations of the commission. An indication that the Government will at least think about that would be very welcome. Subject to that, we will certainly agree the amendments, which are simply a tidying-up process following the welcome decision to abandon local referendums at large.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, does not disappoint me. I have read the letter from the Electoral Commission carefully. All organisations would love to have the maximum possible time to implement changes, and I understand that these are complex changes. However, council tax payers expect to have protection against excessive council tax increases. That is what we are delivering through the Localism Bill. We have a duty to consult the Electoral Commission. We are fulfilling that duty to make sure that the right processes are in place. However, the Chancellor recently announced a council tax freeze in England for 2012-13. We expect most if not all authorities to take up the freeze, in which case there will be no need for referendums next year, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, graciously recognised.
The Government intend these provisions to become effective from 2012-13 onwards, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent in sufficient time. We will of course reflect on what the Electoral Commission has said as part of our ongoing engagement with it. Noble Lords should also remember that the Secretary of State will set the excessiveness level, which will have to be approved by another place, and if necessary a local authority can be put into a special category if it has any specific problems. With that, I beg to move.