Grand Committee
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013 will amend the legislation governing the existing renewable transport fuel obligation scheme. The small group of amendments is significant in our efforts to tackle climate change, and complete our transposition of the EU Fuel Quality Directive.
Article 7a of the FQD requires suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the fuel they supply by 6% by the end of 2020, against a 2010 baseline. This order would extend the RTFO to cover suppliers of liquid fossil fuel for additional end uses required by the FQD. These end uses are: non-road mobile machinery, including inland waterway vessels that do not normally operate at sea; agricultural and forestry tractors; and recreational craft that do not normally operate at sea.
Suppliers of fuel for end uses covered by the RTFO need to demonstrate that, for a certain proportion of the fossil fuel they supply, greenhouse gas savings are delivered through the supply of sustainable renewable fuels. In addition, the amending order would make express provision for an unpaid civil penalty issued under the RTFO to be recoverable as a civil debt, together with interest at a specified rate. This would enhance the effective enforcement of the RTFO.
It may be useful if I provide a brief overview of the regulatory framework so that the proposed changes can better be understood. We have recently introduced the Motor Fuel (Road Vehicle and Mobile Machinery) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Regulations 2012, to which these amendments closely relate. The GHG regulations require suppliers to report on the greenhouse gas intensity of the fossil fuels that they supply. The Government must obtain this information to meet our obligations under the FQD but are not able to require it under the RTFO scheme.
Both the RTFO and GHG schemes are administered by the same team at the Department for Transport. The reporting requirements of each align as closely as possible to minimise potential burdens on suppliers. The RTFO obligation is met by redeeming renewable transport fuel certificates. The order would enable suppliers of renewable fuel for additional end uses covered by the FQD to be awarded certificates. These could be sold to obligated suppliers.
As the legislation stands, the obligation would be 5% for 2013-14 and thereafter. The order would adjust this figure to 4.74% from 2013-14 to ensure that the proposed expansion of the RTFO scheme does not at this point result in an increase in the absolute volume of biofuel supplied in the UK. This is necessary because of concerns about the sustainability of some biofuels when emissions from indirect land use change are taken into account. The Commission proposed a directive in October to address ILUC. Until such time as ILUC is resolved, we are not in a position to increase the obligation level on suppliers under the RTFO. We will, however, keep this under review.
In 2011 the Government consulted on the expansion of the RTFO provided by this draft order. Further to that consultation, time was provided for suppliers and end users of gas oil to prepare. The RTFO administrator has also provided advice to suppliers and has consulted on amended RTFO guidance relating to the proposed changes. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this is a very interesting order and quite complicated for some people to understand. I have a few questions for the Minister.
The first question refers to this issue of non-road mobile machinery. The Minister will be aware that a lot of work and debate took place on this issue, which has been around for some time. The Commission, after much persuasion, produced a directive which was published in October or November 2011 and allowed non-road mobile machinery to continue not to comply with stage III B or the equivalent for a period of three years. That would allow the railway industry—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—to purchase locomotives which did not comply with the new directive. There is a good reason for that: nobody had designed a locomotive that would comply, so it was either no locomotives or ones which did not comply. The industry persuaded the Commission of this and since then, surprisingly maybe, one or two designs have popped up. However, there is still a demand for this. It is now one year and three months since the directive was agreed in Brussels but it has not yet been converted into British law. So, technically, although anybody who buys a locomotive—I think that it also applies to tractors and other things off-road—is compliant with EU legislation, they can be taken to court and fined in this country because the Government have not got round to producing these regulations.
Perhaps the Minister can therefore answer two questions. First, when are we going to see these regulations? I hope the answer will not be “soon”, because in many Governments’ terms “soon” probably means a year’s time, and by that time they will have run out of space.
Secondly, what effect will the new regulation converting the directive into UK law have on this order? It seems to me—I may have got it wrong; I stand to be corrected—that we are implementing what is not a very sensible scheme from the Commission to add biofuel to existing fuel, especially when there is a shortage of crop area and crops around the world, which puts up the cost of fuel. Turning some of those crops into bio seems a bit perverse to me. Certainly the Renewable Energy Association believes that this will be a seriously perverse incentive to investment in renewable fuels and renewable generating capacity. It is talking about the market size being reduced to 30% or 40%, jeopardising investment of £1 billion and putting 3,500 jobs at risk. One can dispute those figures, but what consultation has taken place with the Renewable Energy Association? It is a very respectable organisation.
On Monday I attended a sort of round table with the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, our new Treasury Minister, who was extremely good. It was a Chatham House event so I am not going to say who said what. It was to do with investment and infrastructure, and investment in other things that the Government are so keen on at the moment. We were told, and there was general agreement, that there was not much trouble with finding the funds for investment. The two problems were: first, planning—which is going on in the Chamber at the moment; and secondly, some kind of comfort for the investors that the Government are not going to change their mind and change the ground rules or the buy-in price or whatever during the time when investors are trying to get a return on their capital.
I hope that the Government are going to follow-up this particular regulation with a new debate with the Commission as to what is right and what is wrong for biofuels and whether they should be there at all. Current thinking across many parts of the world has probably overtaken the original idea behind this.
Lord Bradshaw
The question that I wish to address to the Minister is slightly different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Making renewable fuels is a very complex and difficult thing, and we know that there is a lot of tension between the use of land for agriculture for producing food, and turning that crop into fuel. The noble Earl will recall that we have had discussions before on the question of recycling used cooking oil. This used to enjoy a margin of 20 pence over the ordinary cost of fossil fuels. The Government, in their wisdom, decided to put an end to this and “generously”—in inverted commas—decided that when this cooking oil is converted into fuel, it should enjoy a premium of two renewable fuel certificates.
I would like to know, since this has been in place, how much we are actually paying in the way of money for transport renewable certificates compared with the 20p which was a very definite sum and caused investors to really work hard at this particular subject. I am of the opinion that two renewable fuel certificates do not equal 20 pence, and I would like to know whether they have ever reached that. The important point is that as well as producing renewable fuels, the producers of renewable energy from cooking oil are doing a very important job in removing it from landfill, or stopping it from being tipped into rivers or drains or whatever they do with it. Unless it is worth while for people to collect and refine it, it will end up not being used and being dumped in some form or another on the landscape.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I declare an interest as somebody who uses red diesel for heating oil, for tractors and also, at times, for generating electricity. In the amendment of Article 3(6) it talks about fuels that do not include a whole lot of additives to improve the fuel in terms of lubricity and various other things. If the renewable fuel is added, I wonder if that actually takes the place of some of these additives, and whether it will lower the freezing point. One of the problems with red diesel is that when it gets down below zero degrees centigrade to about minus eight or 10 degrees, it starts to wax up. I wonder whether the renewable fuel additive will actually help to prevent the freezing or the waxing.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am pleased to be here to talk to this order. I have to say, though, that it is rather a miserly order. I happen to be a great supporter of renewable energy of all forms, and we as the UK have got challenging, legally binding targets to significantly increase the amount of renewable energy we use in our energy systems. These are energy targets, not just electricity targets, which means that the 15% we have to reach applies to transport, heat and electricity. Currently we have one policy that supports renewable fuels in transport and that is the RTFO.
Currently the RTFO is asking for 5% of the fuel supply to be made up of renewable sources and the Government have frozen that level. We know that we are going to need more than 5% in order to hit our targets, yet we have a policy that is frozen in time, with no longevity or future certainty, stuck at 5%. Now we have an order in front of us that is reducing this market further—not increasing it, not providing growth for that industry, not supporting new jobs, not providing UK farmers with new opportunities for selling products—no, freezing it and reducing it.
What is going on? It is almost as if those legal obligations did not exist. Yet they do, so what are we going to do? We will have to scurry at the end to try to build an industry which is there at the moment but is at severe risk of being undermined, of jobs being lost and investors fleeing, because of this continual undermining through these miserly orders that reduce the size of the market for this industry. I am very disappointed to see this coming forward.
It has been said before that you have to think of this in terms of volumes of litres of fuel sold, not just in percentages. Overall, fuel sales in this country are going down, so the percentage is also going down. So when the Government say, “We have to reduce this to 4.7% so that there are not more biofuels being sold”, that is nonsense. Actually that 5% is less and less every time the total fuel sold in this country goes down. Can the Government please explain their logic? They are talking about reducing the size of this market, and I find it particularly objectionable that they would use so-called green credentials to do this.
Apparently, the Government are very concerned about the sustainability of these sources. Yes, that is a very valid concern, which we share. But the UK has the best standards for biofuels of any country; they are world class, yet we are providing only 12% of this market. Why is that? Because there is no certainty, there is no confidence and there is no backing from the Government. This is yet another nail in the coffin of this industry. It is truly regrettable.
The renewable heat incentive also prevents the use of liquid biofuels for the gaining of credits in that market. Are the Government seriously saying that they support this industry? Absolutely not, they are doing everything they can to shrink it and to prevent it from growing. Presumably this is because they are protecting vested interests, because I do not believe that the arguments put forward on sustainability criteria really hold water.
We have had other commentators here. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has raised issues, as has the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has talked about the need to recycle cooking oil. I hope the Minister will come back with answers and, above all, I hope he will explain to us why the Government see fit to keep capping this industry, reducing its market share, and how they expect to generate investment, growth and jobs in the country if they carry on in this way.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about non-road mobile machinery, particularly the railway industry and locomotives, and the emissions regulations. I would like to point out that this order deals with the carbon intensity of the fuel. His point is not actually directly relevant, although I had a very interesting discussion with the officials at the Department for Transport who are directly responsible for this issue. It is quite close but not exactly on the subject. I will write in detail to the noble Lord about where we are on the emissions regulations for railway locomotives.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Earl is right to say that the NRMM is an emissions regulation rather than a fuel regulation, but is there no link between the two?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I should imagine that technically they are inextricably linked, but the order deals with the RTFO and carbon intensity. The noble Lord is more worried about the emissions regulations on oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions from railway locomotives. I have to say that some railway locomotives can best be described as filthy.
The noble Lord also questioned whether the ILUC proposals will harm renewable energy investment, and the noble Baroness touched on the same point. We are keeping levels of biofuels the same due to the ongoing ILUC concerns. We are actively negotiating this issue in Europe, and when the ILUC problem is resolved, we will be able—
Baroness Worthington
I have heard this response before. Perhaps I can talk it through in simple terms. If the total volume of fuel sales is declining, the percentage in volume terms will also decline. Does the Minister accept that the market share in terms of the number of litres of renewable fuel that can be sold declines as fuel sales decline?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is passionate about this issue and I hope that she will allow me to get on to that very point.
When the ILUC problem is resolved, we will be able to increase the total amount of biofuel we create and process. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, we are not reducing the total requirement for biofuel. I accept her point about the percentage of the market, which is going down slightly at the moment due to the economic conditions. Clearly, the total amount of biofuel produced will also go down; I accept the point. However, I do not expect the noble Baroness would be happy if, when the market starts to go up, we were to cap the amount of biofuel. If the market goes up, she would like to see more biofuel being produced—and the market will start to recover at some point.
Lord Berkeley
That is a fairly rash statement, is it not? The latest figures I have seen show that road traffic movements have gone down over the past four years whereas railway passenger numbers have shot up. Is this a change in government policy? Do they expect road traffic volumes to rise again? Is this all down to economic circumstances? If that is the case, why have rail passenger numbers gone up? Of course, rail passengers are not so directly affected by this. Obviously the Minister can say, “If road traffic goes up”, but it may not.
Earl Attlee
Noble Lords opposite know perfectly well that a range of factors affect the demand for transport. Demand for the fuels which propel that transport will fall during a recession, but when we get back to a period of growth, demand for all forms of transport will rise, as will the demand for fuel. That is inevitable. This is not a change in government policy.
Baroness Worthington
Except that we have increasingly tight standards on vehicle efficiency, which is another contributing factor to the fall in overall fuel sales. Our fleet is becoming more efficient as vehicles become cleaner. The Minister says that volumes have to be kept steady because the Government are worried about the environmental impact, but what I am saying is that we want greater volume. The Minister’s logic suggests that the volume should be kept steady, but it is not remaining steady, it is declining, and as a result the environmental impacts are declining.
Earl Attlee
I accept the point about the improving fuel efficiency of all transport equipment, and that is desirable. I also accept that we want to increase the amount of biofuel in order to reduce CO2 emissions. We have the same objectives. However, we also have to be careful not to do something that looks really good but gets us in a position where we are using very large amounts of biofuel while indirectly creating land use change in other parts of the world. I will come back to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the point about used cooking oils, which now get two RTFCs. As he said, that does not equate to the 20 pence duty differential. The department recognises the importance of biodiesel made from UCO. We have committed to review the RTFO this year, but we cannot do so until we have had a full year of data on what is going on in the market. Because of the way that the market works, RTFCs can be issued quite late in the cycle. We must get the correct data.
At Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, raised with me a point regarding the dual obligation. A problem can arise whereby we might take a large import of ethanol and that adversely affects the used cooking oil market. I undertook to raise this issue with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have done so. However, we cannot expect any changes until we have properly analysed the year’s trading.
Lord Bradshaw
Perhaps the noble Earl can stop there. It is generally small businesses that deal with used cooking oil, and cutting their income for a year can put a number of them out of business. This is not a game that is played in lofty heights; it is a cash-in-hand business. If it is not worth collecting the cooking oil, it will not get collected. There is some sense of urgency in communicating to the industry the Government’s real intention to make sure that such businesses do not lose out through these changes. When they were made—the withdrawal of the 20 pence differential and its replacement with renewable certificates—it was trumpeted that the industry would be better off or protected, but what has actually happened? I would like an answer, please.
Earl Attlee
I should point out that the duty differential was extremely expensive. I go back to my point that we must wait until the end of the trading period to see how the market is working. The other point is that, because of world and EU trade rules, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, we cannot put in place regulations designed to protect our own used cooking oil industry.
Lord Bradshaw
However, you could take into account the fact that those people are giving a service to the community by collecting this wretched stuff, instead of it going to waste. It would not be stretching credulity too far to say that there should be a supplement to whatever is paid because they are carrying out a job that would otherwise fall to the Government. You have got to collect the stuff. Collecting it through the sewers, rivers or landfill is expensive.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, if someone poured used cooking oil into a river they would be committing a serious criminal offence.
I can answer the point from my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who talked about the freezing point—the wax point—of gas oil. There are, as he will know, technical regulations regarding where gas oil or diesel oil will freeze, but I have not briefed myself on that. In Bosnia, however, in the winter of 1993-94, I experienced gas oil freezing and it was not very funny. If I have anything more to add on that or if there is a problem I will write to my noble friend. I suspect that there is no specific freezing problem. However, I have to be honest and say that there are issues with biodiesel regarding how long you can store it. Advice is being issued to the people responsible—especially those with large generating plant or construction equipment—so that they know the limitations and that they will have to adapt their procedures slightly. It is a well understood problem.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. He is quite right: there is a problem with biofuels. I believe that people in the boating industry are expressing serious concern about it because people do not always use their boats very often, this stuff sits in the tank for a very long time, goes all funny and does not come out when they are trying to avoid hitting the rocks. That is probably a different version of the story told by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, but there are some serious problems with this issue which I do not think have yet been resolved.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have spent a lot of time discussing this very issue with my officials. I will be honest: it will be necessary to make sure that the fuel is circulated in the tanks. If fuel has been in your tanks for several years, you will experience problems. However, I would expect boating magazines to write up what needs to be done. Technical advice will be available. I have to be honest and admit that this is an issue, but it is manageable.
The noble Baroness seems to be reluctant to accept my ILUC point. If we just want to look pretty and massively increase the amount of biodiesel that is produced just to look good—that is, increase the obligation level—and get our percentages right so that the graph goes straight to the desired end-state, we could change the rules on tallow and say, “Okay, all grades of tallow are waste and therefore will get double certification”. That would look great, but the only snag is that the better grades of tallow are also used for making soap. Therefore, there would be less high-grade tallow available for making soap, the people making soap would have to find something else with which to make it, and they would go for palm oil. An increased demand for palm oil would result in indirect land use change impacts. We would look wonderful—
Baroness Worthington
With all due respect, if there is a problem with the environmental impact of soap manufacturing, surely you should address that through regulations which directly affect soap manufacture. You cannot second-guess everything that will happen in a globally traded market in commodities.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness has her views but the European Union takes this issue very seriously. We are trying to work out what the correct course of action is to avoid indirect land use changes. It is simply no good us increasing the demand for biofuels without having any regard to indirect land use changes in other parts of the world. I am surprised that the noble Baroness appears to be willing to ignore what is going on in the rest of the world just so that we can have good figures.
Baroness Worthington
I am not ignoring what goes on in the rest of the world. Clearly, criteria around the sustainability of biofuels are of the utmost importance. What I am concerned about is that the industry needs to reach its targets for 2020, which are legally binding, and the Government seem to have such disregard for that that they are not listening to its complaints. The Government do not seem to understand that the industry has had an increase in its market share up to April 2013, which is mere weeks away, but from that point on there is no future trajectory, no sign of when there will be a future trajectory, no clarity from the Government and no words of support, just order upon order that whittles away at the market. Of course the industry lacks confidence, and of course its investors are seriously concerned. What are the Government doing to address this? Are they consulting the industry? What can the Government do to reassure it?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we remain very concerned that studies and impact assessments have demonstrated that some biofuels actually produce greater carbon emissions than fossil fuels when indirect land use change is factored in. The UK must in law comply with the EU renewable energy directive—RED—which contains a target for the UK to source 15% of its overall energy, and 10% of energy used in transport, from renewable sources by 2020. However, we are not prepared to move so fast that we create indirect land use change problems in the mean time. I am sorry that I have not been able to satisfy the noble Baroness. I am very disappointed; I will have to try harder in future.
Health and Social Care Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2013
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we had many debates in the House and in this Committee on the Health and Social Care Act, and the noble Lord will remember the lengthy debates on the Bill itself. In this Session debates have taken place on secondary legislation that puts in place key elements of the new system. Most recently, we debated the NHS Bodies and Local Authorities (Partnership Arrangements, Care Trusts, Public Health and Local Healthwatch) Regulations on 5 February and the draft Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) Regulations on 7 February.
This draft order, however, is very different from those sets of regulations. It is short, and it raises no new issues of substance. Since it seeks to amend primary legislation, it is right and proper that it is subject to affirmative resolution. But it is made under a narrow power to,
“make provision in consequence of the Act”.
I cannot claim that the amendments it makes are of significant interest. They are minor adjustments, needed as a direct consequence of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. They help to keep the statute book up to date and coherent, but they involve no new policies. Consistently with this, neither the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments nor the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has seen a need to draw special attention to the draft order. That confirms that the amendments in the order are indeed consequential on the Act.
Because the order is brief and amends only a few pieces of legislation, it may be helpful if I explain the reason for the amendments to each Act in turn. I will start with the simplest. Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 refers to an NHS body within the meaning of Section 28(6) of the National Health Service Act 2006. Following the amendments to the 2006 Act made by the Health and Social Care Act, this is now Section 275(1). The draft order amends the cross-reference in the Education Act accordingly.
The order amends two other Acts by removing references to primary care trusts. These bodies are being abolished by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on 1 April 2013, so it makes no sense to keep references to them on the statute book.
The first of the Acts in question is the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Schedule 2 to this Act identifies the vehicles that are exempt from vehicle excise duty. Currently a vehicle is exempt when it is being used or kept on the road by, among others, a primary care trust or by,
“a health service body, as defined in section 60(7) of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990”.
The definition of “health service body” in Section 60(7) currently includes strategic health authority.
Schedule 5 to the Health and Social Care Act already removes the reference to “strategic health authority” from the definition of “health service body” in Section 60(7) of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990. Consistently with that, the draft order now removes the reference to primary care trust from the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act.
The second Act is the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Section 130 of this Act identifies circumstances in which local authorities may use or disclose information about certain benefit claimants, including when the claimant is in hospital accommodation provided by an NHS trust, a foundation trust or a primary care trust. Again, the draft order removes the reference to “a primary care trust” without replacement. The Health and Social Care Act creates no new provider bodies, so it is not necessary to replace this reference to a primary care trust.
I turn next to the Audit Commission Act 1998. The amendments to this Act look more complex because they amend a number of provisions, but their purpose is very simple. The Audit Commission Act is best known for setting out the audit framework for local authorities, which also applies, with some differences, to health service bodies. As matters currently stand, however, the Health and Social Care Act provides for clinical commissioning groups’ accounts to be audited by the Audit Commission in accordance with the Audit Commission Act, but the Audit Commission Act itself does not apply to clinical commissioning groups. These are the new bodies that are being established under the Health and Social Care Act to commission the majority of secondary healthcare. The draft order therefore amends the Audit Commission Act to ensure that its requirements for health service bodies apply to clinical commissioning groups. The amendments also recognise the role of the NHS Commissioning Board in relation to clinical commissioning groups. For example, if an auditor of a clinical commissioning group thinks that there has been unlawful expenditure, the auditor must notify the Commissioning Board in addition to the Secretary of State.
Earl Howe
My Lords, if the Committee will allow me, I think it is probably helpful if I complete my remarks. Our normal procedure is that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as opposition spokesman, will speak first, followed by other noble Lords. I will answer all questions at the end, if that is acceptable.
I turn now to the amendments to the Local Government Act 2000 and to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which I shall refer to as the 2000 Act and the 2007 Act. In both cases, the draft order removes references to primary care trusts and replaces them with references to the NHS Commissioning Board and to the relevant clinical commissioning group. The context here is one of commissioning services rather than providing them, so it is appropriate to make this substitution. To explain this in more detail, Section 104 of the 2007 Act sets out persons who are “partner authorities” of certain local authorities. The list currently includes primary care trusts. The definition of “partner authority” is relevant for a number of provisions in both the 2000 Act and the 2007 Act. For example, Section 9FF of the 2000 Act applies, with some exceptions, where an overview and scrutiny committee or its sub-committee makes a report or recommendation to the local authority or its executive on certain functions of a “relevant partner authority” that are exercised in relation to the committee’s area or residents of that area. In such a case, Section 9FF(2) enables the committee to require the relevant partner authority,
“to have regard to the report or recommendation in question in exercising its functions”,
and Section 9FF(4) requires the relevant partner authority to comply.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that the Grand Committee will be grateful to the noble Earl for his very comprehensive description of this very important order. I refer the Committee to my health interests, contained in the register.
It is a curiosity of Department of Health orders that we are having this debate on an affirmative resolution on a quite unexceptional order, and yet around us great debate is going on about the competition statutory instrument—which the noble Earl will know a little bit about, I suspect—which is a negative order. The noble Earl has explained that this is essentially making changes to primary legislation and that is why it has to be considered in this way. However, having made reference to the order on public procurement, SI/2013/257, is the noble Earl in a position to update the Committee on whether or not he intends to revoke the order?
I was interested in Article 4, which refers to the Audit Commission Act. My understanding is that either the Audit Commission has already been abolished or it is shortly to be abolished. I am not going to open up that debate today but it has been put to me that one of the benefits of the Audit Commission is that the fees it sets help keep audit fees down generally. My question to the noble Earl is: if clinical commissioning groups now have to use the big auditing firms, is there not some concern that fees will rise over time because there is not the discipline of the Audit Commission being able to provide an audit service itself? Given that the management costs available to clinical commissioning groups are quite limited, that would be a concern. Other than that, of course I am happy to support this order.
Lord Jones
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his patient and detailed explanation of what the order entails. I had intended an early intervention so that he might be able to give the answer to my query during the debate. Does this order, which refers to social care, presage a better deal for those this with Alzheimer’s disease? In the context of my question, is the noble Earl able to give the briefest definition of social care?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I turn first to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, around the Audit Commission and its role. The noble Lord is right: the Government’s intention is to bring forward legislation, as soon as parliamentary time allows, to replace the Audit Commission. The legislation will abolish the Audit Commission and establish a new framework for the audit of local public bodies in England. The Commons committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Draft Local Audit Bill published its report on 17 January. The Government are considering the report very carefully and we will publish a response in due course. I think that that is all I can say in the context of the noble Lord’s question about fees, but if I have any further points to add I will, of course, write to him.
The noble Lord also asked me about the procurement regulations, and I congratulate him on taking the opportunity to do so. We remain absolutely committed to the undertakings given during the passage of the 2012 Act, and we are clear that the regulations we have laid adhere to both the letter and the spirit of those undertakings. However, we understand the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords and stakeholders, and we are making a public commitment to engage intensively with Members of Parliament and Peers to understand their concerns. We will look again at the regulations to see how we can explain them better, clarify our position and address the concerns that have been raised.
The noble Lord asked me about the definition of social care in the context of this order. I am perhaps not the best person for making up definitions on my feet. However, in terms of care of the elderly, social care is that activity which is characterised by the service provided by local authorities and their contractors to look after elderly people, both in residential accommodation and in their own homes by way of domiciliary care. The noble Lord mentioned patients with Alzheimer’s disease. I would perhaps sound a slight caveat because people with Alzheimer’s disease can, of course, be looked after in a variety of settings, including a healthcare setting. However, there are very many individuals who are looked after in their own homes and in residential care as well. Social care tends to be characterised as care that does not involve a specific health input, but rather the care of an individual for their day-to-day living needs.
Lord Jones
The noble Earl has been very courteous and helpful. Since I held, many years ago, a position like his in three Administrations, I know that to ask a question early enough enables the Minister to have the answer prepared by officials. I thus rise again to my feet simply to say that my original intervention was well intended because I knew that, notwithstanding the elegance and brilliance of the noble Earl’s ministerial reputation, it would have been more helpful if I had spoken earlier than I did.
Charities (Incorporated Church Building Society) (England and Wales) Order 2013
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Charities (Incorporated Church Building Society) (England and Wales) Order 2013.
Relevant documents: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this order is made under Section 73 of the Charities Act 2011 to give effect to the provisions of a scheme settled by the Charity Commission for England and Wales. The purpose of the scheme is to amend the existing trusts of the Incorporated Church Building Society, the ICBS, a charity which gives grants for the building and repairing of Anglican churches and chapels, and to simplify its administrative provisions.
The charity is regulated by the Church Building Society Act 1828 and therefore this order is needed to give effect to the changes to that Act contained in the Charity Commission scheme. Because the 1828 Act is a public general Act, the scheme cannot be made without the draft order first being approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, in accordance with Section 73(4) of the Charities Act 2011.
The ICBS was founded in 1818 and incorporated by Act of Parliament 10 years later. Its purpose was to,
“remedy the deficiencies of places set aside for Public Worship in our towns and cities”.
For the next 100 years, it enjoyed considerable public support and contributed to the building and repair of Anglican churches and chapels. By 1845, the society was assisting with the building of more than 50 churches a year. It was the principal voluntary society for promoting the building and restoration of Anglican churches in the 19th century, the most active period of church building since the Middle Ages, and provided funds via grants and loans.
Over the next century, however, public support waned to the extent that by the early 1980s the society’s activities had shrunk considerably. The then trustees were concerned that the administrative costs of maintaining it as an independent charity, though modest, were absorbing an unjustifiable proportion of its income, which by then was derived largely from investments. To improve efficiency, another charity with similar objects, the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, now succeeded by the National Churches Trust, agreed to administer the society’s affairs for a small fee.
The ICBS was registered with the Charity Commission in 1962. A commission scheme is now needed to enable the National Churches Trust to take full trusteeship of the ICBS. However, due to the statutory basis of the ICBS, a parliamentary order is required to give effect to the scheme, which repeals all but the preamble and four sections of the 1828 Act, and provides for the administration of the charity.
The National Churches Trust is the only independent UK-wide charity supporting and promoting Christian places of worship. It does this through the provision of grants for repairs and modernisation, and through the provision of support, advice and information. The general committee of the ICBS has aligned the use of the remaining funds of the society with the general aims and objectives of the NCT, subject to ICBS funds being used to support those buildings with which the society is associated, namely Church of England buildings constructed from 1818 onwards. To this end, in recent years, and in anticipation of the implementation of the scheme, the remaining ICBS funds are being used to provide repair grants to churches that fall within this criterion.
The proposed scheme, which is being made at the request of the charity’s current trustees, sets out the powers of the new corporate trustee. The 1828 Act specifies that the trustees of the charity are the management committee. This governing body is more than 80 strong and includes the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 44 diocesan bishops of the two provinces of Canterbury and York and 36 elected lay members of the charity. Members of the charity are,
“anybody who makes a donation of 10 guineas or an annual donation of one guinea”.
The trustee body is too large and it is difficult to know who is currently a member of the charity. The scheme replaces the existing trustees with the NCT, which will be the sole corporate trustee of the charity. The existing trustees are in agreement.
The charity’s objectives set out in the scheme are similar but not identical to the original objectives. In the 1828 Act the purposes are defined as,
“enlarging, building, rebuilding and repairing Churches and Chapels in England and Wales”,
whereas the proposed new objectives refer to churches and chapels of the Church of England. This narrowing reflects the charity’s close links with the Church of England and the fact that its support has traditionally been provided only to Anglican churches.
I declare what is almost an interest here. I am very conscious that Sir Titus Salt, who built Saltaire, not only built two churches in Saltaire for a village with a population of only just over 1,500 people but gave a very considerable amount of money for the erection and repair not only of Congregational and Methodist churches but also of Anglican churches all over the north of England. As I walk around Yorkshire, I am not entirely sure that the “repair” of a number of medieval churches during this period was something of which I entirely approve, but no doubt at the time it was regarded as entirely necessary.
The 1828 Act does not set out the charity’s powers explicitly in the way that modern charity governing documents do, so the scheme also provides the charity with standard powers, most of which are found in the model governing documents on the commission’s website. A significant motivation behind the trustees applying for this scheme was to modernise the governance and governing document of the charity. The scheme provides the charity trustees with the powers that they need to operate effectively and efficiently in the modern world.
I am confident that the new scheme will be beneficial to the charity. It will ensure that administrative costs are kept to a minimum and that a greater proportion of the charity’s funds can be used to fulfil its purposes. I therefore commend this instrument to the Committee.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing a very welcome statutory instrument. As he indicated, the National Churches Trust, the only national, independent charity supporting religious buildings, does a great deal of valuable work. As he outlined, for two centuries it and its predecessor have been key players in the construction and maintenance of a great number of churches and chapels. Its work has provided places for worship, as well as supporting church buildings of historical and architectural value. In recent years, the charity has given Christian places of worship an average of £1.5 million a year in grants, allowing them to conduct vital repairs and modernisation, including increasing access, which clearly we welcome.
The work of the charity goes beyond religion and benefits the whole community. Every year, millions of people use church buildings for a range of activities, including classes for art, music and health—and even Labour Party meetings. The churches are also spaces for people to seek help. More than half of all Alcoholics Anonymous meetings take place in churches, as do 40% of Women’s Institute meetings. I am sure that the Minister, wearing one of his other hats, knows that one polling station in six at the most recent general election was in a church building. I fear that, for some of us, it is the only time we cross the threshold of a church. With pubs, social clubs and libraries closing, churches are often the last remaining community buildings. Therefore it is clear that the Incorporated Church Building Society provides a great deal for people of all faiths and of none.
As the Minister explained, as time rolled on, its constitution sometimes got in the way of its good work. As he suggested, by the 1980s its activities had shrunk and the trustees discovered, as had those of many other charities, that a greater administrative burden and awkward membership arrangements took up a lot of time as they tried to maintain it as an independent charity. The cost of administration became disproportionately high. We hope that the new scheme will address that. The statutory instrument, drawn up at the request of the current trustees, will allow the charity to update its structure. Importantly, as the Minister said, it will make the trustees the sole members, as opposed to the current arrangements which include anyone who donates a guinea. However, I realise that some people will not have his and my age and I thought I should explain that that is £1.05p. Or they could make a single donation of 10 guineas, which I worked out was £10.50p. The change would modernise the trust’s governance arrangements, simplify the administrative requirements and help to free up the charity to concentrate on its core business. I take this opportunity to congratulate the National Churches Trust on its work. We wish it well and are grateful that this SI has been introduced.
Lord Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his commanding introductory remarks and my noble friend for her youthful remarks. I have read the helpful policy background in the Explanatory Memorandum which the department has composed, and for which I am grateful. Paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, headed, “Policy background”, states:
“The purpose of the Charity is to provide for the better collection and application of voluntary contributions for the purpose of enlarging, building and repairing Church of England churches and chapels situated in England and Wales”.
It has occurred to me that those churches and chapels in Wales are not Church of England, they are Church in Wales. So the question I have for the Minister is: has the department come forward with this order not knowing that there is an error in the Explanatory Memorandum? Is it therefore proceeding in error on that basis?
It was nice to hear the Minister refer to churches in Saltaire. St Ethelwold’s of the Church in Wales is a splendid church in north-east Wales in the town of Shotton. Would this order enable the tower of St Ethelwold’s to be completed or allow for that possibility?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their welcome of the order. I particularly welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on the translation of churches into spaces for the local community. I have experienced shock on one or two occasions when going back to churches in which I had worshipped, or in whose choirs I had sung as a boy, to discover that all the pews had been removed, including one very old-fashioned church which we went to when my father was the local bank manager. The bank manager’s pew was the second one from the front on the right-hand side, and one had to sit in the bank manager’s pew. Thankfully, that has now all gone. The pews have all been removed and it is an open space for all sorts of purposes. As we know, that has happened all over the country. I think that that is part of the transformation of the Church of England in making sure that it does continue to hold together local communities for people of all backgrounds and all faiths.
On the question of churches in Wales, there is a separate Welsh Religious Buildings Trust, which was founded in 1996 to care for redundant historic places of worship of all faiths in Wales. To avoid duplicating the work of the Friends of Friendless Churches, those of the Church in Wales are excluded from this. The trust currently cares for six buildings and is in discussion with regard to a seventh, but I am very conscious, as I know the noble Lord will be, that there are a great many churches and chapels in Wales which are open to the desirability of assistance. There are other comparable charities. I happen to know the Historic Chapels Trust very well because I have good friends in Yorkshire who are actively engaged in that. There is a Scottish Redundant Churches Trust, a Scotland’s Churches Trust and an Ulster Historic Churches Trust, so this is dealing with England partly because the devolved Administrations have parallel and comparable bodies.
Having answered those questions, I welcome the general acceptance that this is a desirable and useful adjustment of an early 19th century charity. We have to modernise charities from time to time and it is entirely within the principle of the public interest of charities that this amendment should be made. I hope that we all welcome the extent to which churches, which are often at the historic centre of communities, are being restored, opened and transformed to provide places where members of the communities can get together. I commend the order.
Elections: Voting Age
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the majority vote in the House of Commons calling for a reduction in the voting age to 16.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet seem to have accepted the case for extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. They have not just promised to accept the change but have acted to make it a reality. Before noble Lords express incredulity, let me add an important caveat. They have indeed done so, but only, of course, for our fellow citizens in Scotland, and only for the specific 2014 vote on whether Scotland should become independent. It is a matter of record—I refer noble Lords to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 15 January—that the Government have accepted that this could happen under the Edinburgh agreement. The Secretary of State said that,
“what happens in Scotland affects the whole United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/13; col. 748.].
It was in that context that on 24 January, MPs voted by 119 to 46 for a Motion to rationalise the extension of the franchise in this respect throughout the United Kingdom. The support was cross-party, just as it is for my own Voting Age (Comprehensive Reduction) Bill, which has received support from all parts of your Lordships’ House. In my view, cross-party support is absolutely critical for an issue of this sort. Some politicians advocate changes in the electorate, such as those who advocate the extension to overseas voting, because they hope that it is going to be to their political advantage. But in this case the sole advantage is to the electorate as a whole and its reconnection with the political process as a whole. I am therefore delighted that my noble friend Lord Lucas is hoping to be able to participate in this debate shortly, along with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. All three intend to participate because they have given their support to my Bill. However, I pay special tribute to my noble friend Lord Lucas because I have shamelessly plagiarised his Bill of 10 years ago.
It would be patently inequitable, irrational and absurd to limit this reform of the franchise to one part of the country for one occasion only. As things stand, the same cohort of the Scottish population that will be added to the register for the referendum will then be refused a vote in the general election a few months later. That makes no sense. What if a Westminster, Holyrood or local government by-election poll takes place in Scotland on the same day as the referendum? Are 16 and 17 year-olds to be issued with only one ballot paper for the referendum, but excluded from choosing their representative? Would 16 and 17 year-olds be refused a vote in any subsequent referendum, such as on our continuing membership of the European Union? Quite apart from the issues of principle, let us imagine the complex bureaucratic nightmare of such markedly different registers for different purposes if these inequities are allowed to continue.
It is being trailed that the Scottish change was agreed only reluctantly because the First Minister demanded it in exchange for meeting the UK Government’s insistence on one simple, approved question in the referendum and a supervisory role for the Electoral Commission. It has even been suggested that Mr Salmond made it a condition of accepting these other requirements because he anticipated that they would be refused. Some cynics take pleasure in noting that not only did the Westminster Ministers and all parties call his bluff, but all the signs are that younger people are just as doubtful about the merits of breaking up the UK as everyone else.
Whatever may have been the cause of this acceptance of a temporary change to the Scottish electorate, surely no one can deny that it would be irresponsible and damaging if it led to what the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has always warned us against—namely an,
“ad hoc and piecemeal approach to constitutional reform”.
In its report, The agreement on a referendum on independence for Scotland, our committee also insists that the relevant authorities must act,
“in accordance with their constitutional responsibilities of fairness and equal treatment”.
If that applies north of the border, surely it must also apply everywhere else in the United Kingdom. The case for equality in the franchise must make itself for the whole of our country.
However, to those Members of both Houses who regularly attend sixth-forms—in the case of Members of the other House, in their constituencies; or for Members of this House, on behalf of the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme—the substantive case for extending the franchise must be just as clear. Students of this age cohort are far better informed about the major issues of our day than I was at that age. Fifty years ago, most people inherited their opinions and political allegiances from their parents. This was all too apparent when I first canvassed in the 1960s.
It is of course also true that 18 year-olds at present are, on average, unlikely to have the opportunity to vote in a general election until they are well over 20. Even if the franchise is extended, 16 and 17 year-olds may not have that opportunity until they are 18 or more. However, getting on the electoral register with full entitlement to vote would be a natural end product of the citizenship course in schools. It would become part of the normal process towards complete legal maturity, and addressing it in school would deal with some of the fears about under-registration that have been expressed in this House.
When the Government bring forward regulations for individual electoral registration, they could easily stipulate that all 14 and 15 year-olds in school should be registered in year 10 at school, in readiness for entitlement to vote, once they turn 16. The Government would, in turn, have to bring forward the time at which national insurance numbers are issued, or establish an alternative identifier for this group. That is not that difficult.
This simple but significant change would also help young people to appreciate that national elections are not the only occasions for democratic influence on the conditions in which they live. As my honourable friend Stephen Williams observed when he introduced a successful Motion in the other place on 24 January, this age group has shown a dramatically increased awareness of political issues and institutions in recent years. The audit undertaken by the Hansard Society has shown an increase from 17% to 31%, in a relatively short number of years, in that age group’s general knowledge of the working of Parliament, bringing them into line with the older electorate. It should be a logical further step in the success of citizenship education to bring them into the franchise.
I know that some Conservatives resist the idea that a 16 or 17 year-old is mature enough to cast a vote in a local or national election. However, as I noted in the January debate, the Minister responsible, Chloe Smith, was not able to deny that a 15 year-old can be a voting member of the Conservative Party, and therefore vote for the election of its leader. What I am asking the Minister to do this afternoon is accept that there is now a strong case for a proper examination of this issue.
As a member of the informal cross-party group of parliamentarians who advise the Electoral Commission, I am very conscious that the commission, rather than party politicians, should be responsible for advising Parliament on extensions to the franchise. However, it is now nearly 10 years since the commission studied the issue. Its report promised a,
“further formal review of the minimum voting age within five to seven years of this report”.
That was nine years ago, in 2004. In July 2007, the then Prime Minister promised yet more examination of the case, including an analysis of,
“whether reducing the voting age would increase participation in the political process”.
Although the resulting Youth Citizenship Commission found strong support for votes for 16 and 17 year-olds, it also identified “a real evidence gap” on the issue. That was nearly four years ago.
There are two areas in which further evidence could be sought immediately. The first is the claimed tendency that those who start voting young, continue to do so throughout their lives. Secondly, we need to take account of the practical experience of secondary schools in Northern Ireland where completion of citizenship naturally leads to inclusion on the individual electoral registration process.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a firm commitment, after all these previous promises, that the Government do not consider the upcoming franchise extension in the Scottish referendum as an ad hoc, piecemeal, self-contained irrelevance, and that the Electoral Commission will now be invited to fulfil its promise to undertake further comprehensive investigation as a matter of urgency.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Tyler on raising this issue. It is one that we have variously discussed before, as he mentioned, although I am not sure that there has been that much said recently, here or in the other place, that has added much to our knowledge on the subject. On my noble friend’s point about a single election for which the election age was specifically lowered, I note that there is a precedent; it has happened before, in 1918.
Debate on the issue appears to stem from a false premise. Voting is a consequence of political interest, not a cause of it. Lowering the voting age is not likely to have a positive impact on turnout any more than it did when it was lowered to 18 in 1969. It did not promote participation in democracy, but rather served to demonstrate what we already knew: young people are among the groups least likely to vote. That is borne out by the data for recent general elections. One does not change that by further lowering the voting age.
Focusing on the voting age may be seen as a form of displacement activity, recommending change to process rather than addressing the real causes of distrust in the political system. The claim made in another place by one MP in an EDM that,
“lowering the voting age could play a huge role in helping young people feel more connected with political processes”,
is to misunderstand the root of the problem and is arguably a dangerous misunderstanding.
Our time today would be better spent getting to grips with the really important question of why young people are not willing to engage with the political process. As the Youth Citizenship Commission observed,
“while enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year olds is a valid issue for consideration, it is not the key component of any strategy for better engagement of young people”.
It is variously pointed out that more young people will vote for participants in television programmes such as “X Factor” and “Britain’s Got Talent” than vote for parties in a general election. However, that observation rather misses the key point, which is that nowadays political activity has to contend with a plethora of competing interests in a way that it did not have to 40 or 50 years ago. Political parties used to hold a more prominent role in social activity than they do today. Young people are now able to indulge their passions, which can be instant and transient, through social media. Political parties are not able to respond effectively. They cannot offer instant gratification. Neither, I fear, can elections. We need to be addressing this mismatch. There is no easy answer, which is all the more reason for addressing the problem. What we are discussing this afternoon does not get to grips with the real issue.
As to the voting age, what are the arguments for change? Those who favour lowering the voting age advance the argument that at 16 you can join the Army, marry and pay taxes. You cannot simply join the Army at 16. You can apply to join the Army, which is not the same thing at all. Having applied, you have to be selected. What this recognises is that only certain people in this category have the requisite ability. Even if you are selected, you are not sent to the front line. You can marry but only with parental consent. Very few 16 year-olds pay income tax.
As the previous Government’s Children and Young People’s Unit said in its Young People and Politics: A Report on the YVote/YNot? Project in 2002:
“As far as lowering the voting age is concerned, it is clearly necessary to decide at what minimum age most people are sufficiently politically aware, mature, and independent to make up their minds and choose between the various candidates standing for election. On balance, Government takes the view that there is more likely to be a higher percentage of people aged 18 who are able to do this than at 16”.
We live in a society where the road to becoming an adult is staggered. We grant rights to young people at different ages on their journey to adulthood. There has to be some age at which we grant the right to vote. No magical property attaches to it being at 18, but neither does it to being at 16. Most nations opt for 18. A number do not, and just because most nations follow one practice, it does not mean that we have to follow. However, given the lack of a compelling case for change, and with no clear public support for it, I am not persuaded by the case that my noble friend proposes. It would be more fruitful to address the much more difficult issues that confront us.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on securing this debate. It is timely and important and, as so often when we discuss constitutional issues, I agree with a very large amount of what he said. He is right that the issue has been debated for some time without any conclusion being reached. There are passionate feelings on both sides but we seem unable to come to any conclusion. He is certainly also right that the United Kingdom should not be dragged backwards into making an ad hoc constitutional decision by the manoeuvring of the SNP.
However, I am more agnostic than he is about the issue of lowering the voting age. It is not an issue where sides are chosen on the grounds of political ideology. It is also an unusual issue in that positions are not driven, as is so much public policy, by differing priorities. Rather, the position taken on this issue seems to be as much the result of some gut instinct as anything else. For every argument advanced by one side there is an equally compelling argument on the other.
If the argument for lowering the voting age is that young people should be considered adults at 16 rather than 18, there are counterarguments that young people mature at different rates. Whereas some are clearly adults at 16, others are clearly not, and there is no sensible way of evaluating this. If the argument is that the law should be consistent in a way that it is not currently and that there should be one age at which young people are deemed to have become adults, with all the rights and responsibilities that follow, there is no particular reason why it should not be equalised at 16 rather than at 17, when young people are deemed mature enough to take possession of the lethal weapon that is a motor car—or at 18, which will soon be the age up to which young people will be deemed unarguably in need of full-time education.
If the argument is that possession of the vote will engage young people more in civil society and democracy, there is no evidence—as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out—that it has had that effect on those aged 18 and over. If the argument is the principled one of no taxation without representation, it will soon be the case, when the school leaving age becomes 18, that the already very small number of 16 and 17 year-olds who pay tax will dwindle even further.
In the face of the directly conflicting arguments that have clearly bedevilled the resolution of this issue for many years, it might be tempting to fall back on the essentially conservative argument that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, put forward: namely, that the case for change is insufficiently compelling to merit the upheaval that always accompanies any kind of profound constitutional change. However, I have an alternative suggestion.
Whenever constitutional change is discussed—we have heard it already, and I am sure we will hear it again from the distinguished speakers who will follow me—politicians lament the decline of trust in politicians, the increasing disengagement from formal political, democratic processes, and how disadvantaged groups and younger people are increasingly unlikely to vote at elections. One way of helping to tackle these problems is to develop ways in which the public can be more directly involved in the formulation of public policy. New methods of engaging the public in this way through deliberative democracy are potentially important both in engaging the public in politics between elections and in improving public policy.
Such methods would bring together perhaps 500 to 1,000 people to deliberate on policy, exposing them to a range of opinions and policy options and allowing them to debate them over a period of time, typically a day or two, before coming to conclusions. Such exercises would enable the public to bring relevant knowledge, experience and wisdom to bear on policy formation that may not always be available to cloistered Ministers and officials. Engaging the public in this way could help legitimise and entrench policy that might otherwise be unnecessarily contentious.
When politicians cannot come to any sort of settled agreement on an issue such as the one we are discussing today—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on this—constitutional change should always take place as far as possible on the basis of broad agreement across Parliament. That is not always possible, but it should always be at least the starting point. When the change so directly affects our constitutional arrangements and, therefore, everyone in the country, such deliberative democratic arrangements could play an important role in crystallising the issues and helping Parliament to come to a conclusion, thereby providing an important part of that proper consideration that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has so rightly called for. Those involved in such an exercise would be selected randomly but filtered to ensure that they are demographically broadly representative. In this case, they might legitimately include a significant weighting of 16 and 17 year-olds. Whatever decision this group arrived at, in keeping with our precious system of representative democracy, it would still be for Parliament to reach the final decision, but it could now do so informed by the wisdom of the people that it serves.
The Liberal Democrats used to be in favour of such methods of enriching democratic participation before they became preoccupied with other things such as government. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, can perhaps persuade his colleagues in government to rediscover that enthusiasm.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I support votes at 16, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for leading on this issue so robustly. It was Aristotle who said:
“We are what we repeatedly do”.
This is of course why education is so important in forming social habits as well as acquiring information and skills.
In this country we are ambivalent about educating teenagers in democracy and democratic duties, even as we complain incessantly that teenagers are too irresponsible and disengaged. The issue of the voting age typifies this ambivalent and contradictory stance. We deplore the fact that only 44% of 18 to 29 year-olds voted in the previous general election, yet many draw the conclusion that to lower the voting age would pile apathy on apathy. I draw the opposite lesson. Too few young people vote, in part because democracy and education in democracy are not, as Aristotle would put it, repeatedly done at school and college as teenagers are maturing.
Democracy and civic responsibility need to be taught and learnt in schools. We cannot carry on, as with sex education a generation ago, expecting them to be learnt spontaneously or informally, where parents are not engaged, and then complain when this does not happen. This is why the previous Government introduced citizenship as a subject in the school curriculum. It is why I strongly support school councils, in primary schools as well as secondary schools; it is why, in my own party, I am constantly urging university students to stand in local elections and to become councillors; and it is why I now believe that the time has come to lower the voting age to 16, in national and local elections.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton: this is not because that is the only step needed to promote civic responsibility among teenagers. He and my noble friend Lord Wills have identified a number of other possible steps, many of which I support. However, I do not understand the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, against votes at 16 that because it is only one among several steps needed, and not a panacea, it should therefore not be taken at all. That is a very conservative argument against progress of any kind.
It is important not to see these things in isolation. Education and democracy need to go together literally. Most 16 to 18 year-olds are in school or college, and that is where the polling stations should be as well. Every school with a sixth form and every further education and sixth-form college should have a polling station, and young people should be registered to vote there—instead of there being the perversity that some schools are actually closed on polling day so that the adults can vote undisturbed. If we did this, voting would become a semi-obligatory rite of passage, like taking GCSEs and A-levels; citizenship education in schools would have a stronger and more urgent focus; candidates and parties, in local as well as national elections, would regard school and college students as a key constituency; and mock elections would lead to real elections within the education system itself, in the same way that mock exams lead to real exams, and work experience leads, it is hoped, to real work. All this can and should be done.
I have one final point. We are told—and were told again by the noble Lord, Lord Norton—that Britain should not innovate in this way because it might make us look odd internationally. When Britain helped lead Europe in introducing and sustaining democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries, we often looked odd. But we were odd and right, and others followed. I am sure that it would be the same, in time, with votes at 16.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, I, too, am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has given us the opportunity to discuss the lowering of the voting age to 16. One of the main benefits of such a discussion is having the opportunity to think about how our attitudes to young people have changed and developed over the years here in the UK.
Encouraging young people to become actively involved in local community politics through exercising a right to vote could help reinvigorate local government, as well as contribute to boosting the number of people who vote in police and crime commissioner elections, and so on. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that giving younger people the right to vote should not be seen as a universal panacea for increasing engagement with parliamentary and local government democracy, but there seems to be little evidence to suggest that lowering the voting age will be detrimental to voter turnout. In Austria, Nicaragua, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—where 16 year-olds are allowed to vote—there are consistently higher levels of voter turnout than we currently have here, and we need to understand why.
I have heard some extraordinary comments about 16 year-olds and their apparent lack of sense, political naivety, lack of intellectual capacity, inability to tell when they are being taken for a ride, attachment to superficiality and celebrity, et cetera. I only wish I could say that none of those observations applies to people of my own and other age groups. In my experience of visiting schools and speaking with groups visiting Parliament, young people know and feel very strongly about key global issues relating to the environment and poverty, through connections with schools overseas, the internet, and so on. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has said, this information was simply not available when many of us were younger.
Back in 2006, in response to a recommendation by the Power report, one MP argued against the lowering of the voting age to 16, saying:
“Clearly, a line must be drawn to indicate when a young person becomes an adult, and the present age of 18 is widely accepted across society as signifying a major turning point in the personal development and maturity of individuals”.
Of course, that is not actually true because there is so little consistency about when we deem a young person to be an adult. In any case, those kinds of distinctions are very much socially constructed and change over the years. When I was a teenager, the line was drawn at 21, and I am sure that at that time it seemed equally obvious that that was the magical age at which maturity suddenly dawned. But I would argue that even in the seven years since the inquiry headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, reported its findings on participation, we have seen sufficient changes in society to warrant a fresh look at this issue.
There is a general recognition, I think, that many of our children and young people mature physically and psychologically earlier than previous generations. Some even have the responsibilities associated with older people, such as acting as carers for family members. Since the 1980s, more and more young people have expected to go on to further and higher education and as a consequence have had to develop skills of intellectual analysis, which again were not necessarily available to some of us when we were younger. A-levels are offered across the country in government, politics and public administration, and there are courses on citizenship, rights and responsibilities, mock elections, and so on.
As has already been mentioned, the so-called new media such as Twitter, YouTube, the internet and apps offer opportunities to learn about the world in a much wider way than ever before. Young people born into the digital age are most adept at exploiting these resources.
Anyone who doubts that 16 and 17 year-olds are capable of unpicking and analysing political discourse should go to some of the schools that colleagues and I have visited as part of the Peers in Schools programme. When I went to Haringey Sixth Form Centre in Tottenham, when we were in deadlock here debating the reform of the House of Lords, I was well grilled by a group of 16 and 17 year-olds on every aspect of the Bill in a very knowledgeable way and in great detail. They were far more knowledgeable than some of my friends outside the House.
Then there is the Youth Parliament, formed in 1998. Members are aged between 11 and 18 and more than 500,000 young people vote in the elections each year. I will give the last word to somebody who was a representative in the Youth Parliament and who now interns for me, Adam Jogee. About six years ago, when he was 16, he wrote the following:
“As an elected representative of the young people of Haringey, I have first hand experience of their passion, energy and commitment: the energy they use to serve our community, the passion with which they view the world and its future and the commitment which they use to contribute to our society. If we look back over the decades, there are countless cases and examples of people rising up and fighting for their basic human right—the right to vote!”.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for securing and introducing the debate. I must have thought about this question for nearly 40 years as a political philosopher. Although it is a subject on which it is difficult to take a definite position, because one can see arguments on both sides, I am increasingly convinced that the case for a reduction in age from 18 to 16 is very weak and the case against it is fairly strong.
The case for it seems to rest on three arguments, which I will call the arguments of consistency, fairness and democracy. The first argument runs something like this: reducing the age to 16 will bring it in line with other areas of life; for example, children can leave school at 16, get married at 16, can and have to pay tax at 16, join the Armed Forces at 16 and consent to sexual relations at 16. If that is the common age, why can it not be true of voting as well?
The second, right-based, argument is that 16 year-olds these days have the maturity to form political judgment and it is only right that they should be able to vote in the same way as 18, 19 or 20 year-olds. The third argument is that it will increase their interest in politics and strengthen the foundations of participatory democracy.
I am afraid that I am not persuaded by any of these three arguments. The first, that it will bring it in line with other areas of life, is a half-truth. There are several areas of life in which 16 year-olds today cannot do things; for example, they cannot buy alcohol, they cannot serve on a jury and they cannot place a bet. If they can join the Armed Forces at 16, it is only with the consent of their parents, not on their own. Therefore, to say that it will bring them in line is not true.
It is also important to bear in mind that, although they pay taxes—the argument being that there should be no taxation without representation—if a five year-old or seven year-old goes to a shop to buy a bar of chocolate, he ends up paying VAT or whatever indirect taxes he is subjected to. It would be wrong to say that a nine year-old should be able to vote simply because he pays tax; the argument would be absurd.
On the second argument, that one can acquire the capacity for political judgment on what is the right thing to do at 16, there is no evidence for this. What kind of research is this alluding to? I have not seen any here, in the United States, or in any of our European partners. People having access to more information on the internet simply means that they have more information—but information is not knowledge, let alone judgment. In politics, as a voter one is concerned with a practical activity that entails a practical judgment about the range of possibilities that are open to one, and how one should exercise one’s vote. Practical judgment does not come simply by looking at Google and the internet. I would say the same of citizenship classes. One can marshal all kinds of information about various political ideologies; all the things that we have taught in universities for years. Does the kind of information that one can communicate to students in itself give someone the competence to make a political judgment on the issue of whether they should be voting Labour or Liberal Democrat, or whether or not they should be supporting the war in Iraq?
On the third argument, that this will increase their interest in politics: fair enough. However, as my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, that seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. You cannot dangle a vote in front of somebody, saying, “We will give you the vote now in the hope that you will take an interest in politics”. One would hope that a vote is a reward, not an incentive. We are reducing a supremely sacred political activity—the vote, the exercise of highest sovereignty a community has—to dangling a kind of carrot and asking, “Look, if we give it to you, will you vote?”. It is striking that 18 year-olds have had votes for a long time. In the previous general election, only 39.6% of them voted, compared to the rest of the population at somewhere in the region of 70%.
Therefore, I would suggest that the arguments for are not persuasive; at least I have not found them persuasive so far, but other arguments could be produced, in which case I would like to hear them. The arguments against 16 year-olds being allowed to vote seem fairly strong. First, as I say, voting is an exercise of power. It is a participation in sovereignty. If you are going to exercise power, you must have a capacity for judgment of a practical kind. Unless you have had some experience of life, some independent existence and have broken out of the sheltered environment of the family and seen the world on your own and made choices, how will you be able to know what kind of judgment you should make?
My other simple fear is that, given low turnout among young people and the fact that low turnout can be habit-forming, if a 16 year-old gets into the habit of not voting, he or she might continue that habit until the end of their lives. There is a danger that if we give 16 year-olds the vote in the hope that they will participate more enthusiastically in the voting process, the opposite will occur.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie
My Lords, with some trepidation I shall speak in the gap. If I had been the First Minister negotiating the Edinburgh agreement, I would definitely have traded a second question for votes for 16 and 17 year-olds—not that I disapprove of them, but the second question will be much more useful for the whole of the United Kingdom. I was going to say that people under 16 pay VAT, but the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has already done that for me. In visits to schools under the Peers in Schools programme, I always ask pupils, “Do you think you’re a taxpayer?”. They always say no and I trump them by asking, “Well, you all pay VAT, don’t you?”. That is a trivial point.
I wish to comment on three Scottish matters. Sixteen and 17 year-olds already vote in health board elections in Scotland. They can also vote—not that there are very many of them—in the Crofting Commission elections. As regards marriage, a lot of truth has been spoken in the past about people hightailing it up to Gretna Green because the Marriage (Scotland) Act allows them to marry at 16 without parental consent, whereas in England and Wales you certainly have to be over 18 to marry without parental consent.
My final point is merely anecdotal. I visited various schools in the autumn and spoke with pupils in the fourth, fifth and sixth years. I asked them how old they would be in the autumn of 2014, making them think it out. They discovered, perhaps for the first time, that they will have the chance to take part in the referendum. When you say, “How do you think you will vote?”, unfortunately, a massive number, because they have not thought about the fact that they will be able to vote, are nowhere near thinking about what their vote might be. However, I certainly support the idea that we should consider lowering the voting age.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on securing this debate. It is an issue that we are happy to support. It is true that in our most recent manifesto our support was limited to granting a free vote on the issue, but I am glad to report that we have now moved on. In part this was because we found that the roof did not fall in when our Scottish friends gave the referendum vote to those aged 16 and over—and, as we have heard, to crofters. I hope in part that the amendment I moved to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the AV referendum, pushed the issue up the agenda. I suspect in part it was also because we have a younger leader than we had at the time of our last manifesto. However, I think that it was mostly because it is the right thing to do.
The Electoral Reform Society has long argued for this. Unsurprisingly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the UK Youth Parliament supports votes at 16, as did the 2006 Power inquiry. As was said, we allow people at 16 to do other things that are consistent with being an adult such as consenting to medical treatment and entering work or a civil partnership—and indeed, joining the Army and paying taxes, so we do have taxation without representation. Perhaps more importantly, these people cannot vote for the Government that decides which wars to fight. More than 4,500 16 and 17 year-olds were serving in the Armed Forces in April 2007. Of the first 100 soldiers killed in Iraq, six were too young to vote. Do we not owe to their memory the right to vote at 16?
Historically, it always takes time to understand that younger people are more capable of doing things than we thought. In 1918 we gave women the vote—but only from the age of 30. It took until 1969 to bring that figure down to the current age of 18. Even in the 1960s when we discussed the issue, two-thirds of people thought that the voting age should be 21 and not 18. Exactly the same arguments were used in 1968 against lowering the age from 21. Today, of course, the reduction to 18 is completely accepted—but that was 40 years ago.
The Power inquiry received evidence that 16 to 18 year-olds—and, perhaps more interestingly, their teachers—were in favour of the change to 16. Those aged between 16 and 24 are increasingly political. In 2011, 63% had some interest in politics. That figure was up from 56% in 2002. It may be low, but the trend is in the right direction. Only 12% said that they had no interest. Therefore, while I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that this is not a way to promote political engagement, that is not the reason for it. The reason is a democratic one. People of 16 have this right. If we are not careful, politics will lag behind other areas. The Companies Act 2006 allowed 16 year-olds to become company directors, often with bigger decisions to make than voting. Anyone can join the Labour Party at 16 and vote for our leader.
Turning to the Government, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on having this proposal in their manifesto. When we discussed my amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that would have allowed 16 year-olds to vote on AV, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said only that the Bill was not the right place to do it; now we have the right place.
For the senior partners in the coalition, unfortunately Chloe Smith in the other place said that there had to be compelling evidence before any amendment to the electoral franchise would be made. I do not know whether she wants demonstrations in the street or, as we near the centenary in June of Emily Davison’s death, some act of martyrdom. The Government have to give a better reason for saying no than simply that there is no evidence in favour of it. I hope that we will hear from the Minister a more reasoned argument than the one given by Ms Smith.
We have seen youth unemployment rise yet again—up by 11,000 in the most recent quarter. I am beginning to think that if young people had the vote, the Government would take the issue of youth unemployment much more seriously. Perhaps that is the best of all reasons for giving young people the vote.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for bringing this debate to the Lords. He started his speech by referring to a debate in the Commons on 24 January, which I read with some interest, and I have to say that I found the most novel argument to be one that in a sense complements the argument just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which is that of the increasing imbalance in the electorate between the over-65s and young people. That imbalance will grow, and all political parties know that we are pulled in the direction of those who vote and thus are pulled towards putting resources into the over-65s and not into young people. The argument was made in one of the Commons speeches that this might be one way of beginning to redress the balance and to encourage political parties and Governments to think more actively about the needs and interests of young people. It is an argument that I think we all need to take into account.
Let me stress that the Government have no plans to lower the voting age in this Parliament and that, as has already been mentioned, there is no consensus within the coalition Government. That in turn reflects the different views held across society at large and the divergent positions on this topic both within and across the various political parties. After all, we have discovered over the course of the past two and a half years just how difficult political and constitutional change is and how on any proposals for political and constitutional change there are always at least 15 different and contradictory arguments for why nothing should be done, while fewer arguments are made in support of the case for change. Nevertheless, we welcome the ongoing discussions and debate on this issue and we would encourage the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others to maintain their approach.
On the question of the age of majority, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, I simply repeat the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that there is no standard age of majority within the United Kingdom. The process of moving from childhood to majority takes place over several years, and the question of where that should be standardised would itself open up a very difficult process. However, the question of how to re-engage young people in our democracy, in citizenship and in local society is important and we all need to address it. When taking the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill through the House of Lords, I was struck by how severe a problem this is becoming. Younger people do not feel engaged in politics and they are not committed to political parties. In one way or another, we all have to address that problem. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that providing the vote at the age of 16 is not the answer, but it may be one of the ways of contributing to an answer. It would certainly mean that schools and parties would pay much more attention to citizenship education, which is important, and we would have to think about how else we could hook young people into their local communities and into wider engagement as a whole.
We all recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out, that young people are already the least likely to vote. That is the problem, of course, and the question is how to tackle it. We know that a number of things have contributed to it: the increasing remoteness of national politics; the decline in local government and local politics; the decline in respect for our political institutions—above all for Westminster—and the decline of participation at all levels in intermediate bodies from churches and chapels to trade unions and social organisations. The question is: where do we go from here and how can we ensure that engagement in democracy at all levels from the local to the national does not continue to decline in the long term? We cannot let this question go.
Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, suggests, deliberative democracy on the Granada 500 model—I think that was what it was called—is something that we should be experimenting with again in terms of bridging the gap between the governors and the governed. However, I suspect that television companies would be less willing to invest in such activities today as they were 20 or 25 years ago, partly because they would be less convinced that it would command the sort of audience that those very interesting experiments did in the 1980s.
We have a real problem here; we do not yet have a consensus on how we should move forward, as the debate has again shown. The research that there has been in a number of different activities is itself inconclusive. The Government do not disagree with the conclusions of the youth commission report that the approach of using independent commissions to review this should not be used again in the near future. However, we all need to focus. All of us who are committed to democratic politics and want to see a high level of political engagement have a huge and rising problem. All the research that went into looking at the shift to individual electoral registration persuaded me that this is a large and secular issue to which we do not have much of an answer. In a week in which the combination of the Eastleigh by-election and the Leveson report has encouraged the press to throw almost everything it has got at politicians of one sort or another—and people cheerfully say, “Well, don’t worry, they will move on to another set next week”—we recognise how deep a problem of democratic disillusionment and disengagement we have.
Lord Tyler
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. Since we have a few minutes in hand, will he specifically address the fact that both the Electoral Commission and the Youth Citizenship Commission have said that there is a real gap in the research in this area, which has been reflected throughout your Lordships’ discussion this afternoon? Will the Government at least give an undertaking today that they will look again at that lacuna, which has been so clearly identified, and invite the Electoral Commission to look specifically at this again?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I hesitate to make a commitment as broad as that, but I will certainly feed it back and we will look at the question of whether there is a substantial lacuna. One of the issues that we all face here is that we know what the situation is now, and we know that the evidence of demand from young people for votes at 16 is weak. The question that I take particularly from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is whether we are happy about that, and whether we ought to be getting out there to persuade young people that they should be interested in having the vote and they should want to be re-engaged in politics. That is a much larger set of issues.
The previous Government, to their great credit, did their best to get at the question of citizenship. A number of distinguished political scientists contributed to that with modest success. We all recognise that schools have all sorts of other priorities, and that PSHE has not been one of the grandest or most glorious aspects of the secondary curriculum. There is a large issue out there, and we need much more public debate on it. This is part of a much larger issue about popular disillusionment with democratic politics as such, which has to concern us all. None of us would wish to suggest that lowering the voting age would begin to solve that; it would be only a small part of a strategy which I suggest all of us interested in democratic politics, from whichever point of view, should recognise is a shared problem to which we all need to find some shared answers.
Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current situation in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords contributing to this debate, on the 10th anniversary of the eruption of the Government of Sudan’s ruthless assaults on the people of Darfur, resulting in the indictment by the ICC of President al-Bashir and two of his colleagues. The 10 years of conflict have left at least 300,000 dead and 1.7 million are forced to live in camps for displaced people in Darfur, and over 250,000 in Chad.
There has been a recent resurgence of fighting in North Darfur, forcing tens of thousands more people to flee their homes. United States State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland claims that more people have been displaced in Darfur in the past month than in all of 2012, and the United States recently called on Sudan to halt aerial bombardment of Darfur and for UN sanctions experts to be allowed to carry out wider investigations in the country. I ask the Minister if the UK has made similar representations to the Government of Sudan.
Other noble Lords will speak more on Darfur. I will focus on comparable problems in southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, having recently visited both states, where I and my colleagues from HART witnessed President al-Bashir’s genocidal policies. I believe the word “genocidal” is justified.
There has been continuous fighting in Blue Nile state since 1 September 2011. Ground offensives between the Sudan Armed Forces, SAF, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-North, SPLM-N, continue with relentless aerial bombardment of civilians by SAF with Antonovs, MIGs, and helicopter gunships, which have destroyed towns and villages, targeting civilians. We visited Yabus, where the market had been burnt to cinders by incendiary bombs. As a local person said:
“I was in the market when we heard the Antonov above, which began dropping bombs directly on the market. Forty-seven people died, mostly women and children. Twenty-seven were wounded”.
Many are unable to live in their villages because of constant bombardment. They are hiding in the forests and on banks of rivers. They cannot grow crops or reap harvests and are suffering from lack of food and shelter.
In one village we visited, 450 people had already died of starvation. We had been able to send in food aid which had reached survivors who had fled from the village, terrorised by aerial bombardment, shortly before we arrived. We heard their voices and found them hiding in the bush, with some of their children injured by bombs. They were poignantly grateful for the aid we had provided as they could stay in Blue Nile and not have to join the thousands already forced by lack of food to flee into South Sudan. This encounter also demonstrates successful delivery of “indirect aid” to Blue Nile.
I therefore again ask the Minister if Her Majesty’s Government will consider the provision of life-saving food and medical aid to civilians trying to survive in their own lands, who prefer to risk death from aerial bombardment rather than retreat across the border as refugees? Eighty thousand have already fled to Jamam camp, 60,000 to Doro, and approximately 100 to 200 new refugees cross the border into South Sudan every day.
President al-Bashir’s racist motivation for his intended ethnic cleansing of Blue Nile was reflected in his notorious statement at Kirmuk when he said he did not want to see a black plastic sheet in Blue Nile state—that is, he did not want to see a single African person.
In southern Kordofan, fighting began between SAF and SPLM-N on 5 June 2011. There has been persistent aerial bombardment by the Government of Sudan’s Antonovs, jets and helicopter gunships, with over 1,000 bombs again directly targeting markets, schools and people tending their crops. We saw the Antonovs flying over and visited some of the thousands of people now hiding in caves, despite lethal snakes, without access to food, water or healthcare. We saw the girls’ high school in Kauda which received a direct hit, now standing empty, despite the desperate need for girls’ education.
We were told that 302mm Chinese rockets packed with ball bearings, with a 100 kilometre range, have been identified and used. They terrorise civilians—they cannot be heard approaching, so there is no time to take cover. Over 350,000 people have been displaced since June 2011. Approximately 60,000 have fled to the main refugee camp in Yida in South Sudan, and the number is growing rapidly.
The Government of Sudan have not yet permitted any humanitarian access to non-SAF controlled areas. It has been over a year since the tripartite—UN, African Union and League of Arab States—proposal to support negotiations over humanitarian access to conflict-affected areas. The SPLM-N agreed to the proposal on 18 February 2012, but Khartoum has not yet responded. Estimates suggest that between 60% and 70% of those displaced inside the Nuba Mountains have already run out of food, and malnutrition is widespread. Aid is urgently needed because access to affected areas will be virtually impossible during the rainy season, which will also bring many diseases.
Will Her Majesty’s Government support the recommendations in a letter, to be released tomorrow, signed by many UK and Australian parliamentarians and members of the US Congress, to highlight the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, and linking the Darfur atrocities with those now being perpetrated in southern Kordofan and Blue Nile? The letter urges the UN Security Council to: demand an end to aerial bombardment and other attacks against civilians in Sudan; urgently address the humanitarian situation in southern Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur; ensure a comprehensive approach to ending Sudan’s conflicts, focusing on the long-standing need for peaceful and inclusive democratic transformation; and take a leadership role in ensuring that those responsible for grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law are held accountable.
Will Her Majesty’s Government also support proposals that are endorsed by the peoples of Blue Nile and southern Kordofan for: an international independent committee of inquiry to be sent by the UN Security Council to investigate and report on human rights violations and abuses, and crimes against humanity, with a referral to the International Criminal Court if appropriate; targeted sanctions to prevent Khartoum from continuing to perpetrate violations of international humanitarian law with impunity, including denial of diplomatic status and visas for senior members of the NCP and freezing of financial assets held abroad; the international community to pressure Khartoum to allow urgent humanitarian assistance to all conflict-affected areas, monitored by international institutions and applied under recognised international humanitarian principles—deadlines for Khartoum’s agreement should be specified, with clear consequences if these are not met; and, in the absence of negotiated humanitarian access, the international community to explore all alternative options for delivery of assistance as a matter of urgency?
On a personal matter, I briefly mention reports issued by the Khartoum Government, and a letter to me from their ambassador, complaining about my visit to Sudan without official permission. A representative of a well respected organisation responded more aptly, perhaps, than I can:
“In the face of undeniable evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the government of Sudan’s chief objection is not that civilians are being killed indiscriminately. Nor is the chief objection that the reports from the ground are not accurate, detailed, and credible. The chief objection is that witnesses such as yourself, Nick Kristof, John Prendergast, and George Clooney failed to obtain visas before documenting and raising the alarm on the mounting evidence of mass atrocities. As if those committing war crimes would welcome witnesses who filled out visa applications first. The act of turning a blind eye to Sudan’s blood-soaked fields to focus instead on missing paperwork, as if that were the real moral outrage, is a demonstration of the banality of evil”.
Finally, I record some testimonies from local people, as their voices need to be heard and they speak more eloquently than I can ever do. They say:
“I am from the Deloka tribe in the Nuba Mountains, near to Kadugli. I have seen SAF capture and beat women and adults. There were daily attacks on my village by Antonovs, bombing people at the waterhole whenever they saw them. I witnessed a child bombed so that only his leg was left. When our village was burnt to the ground by the SAF we decided to come to Yida”.
“I am from Umm Dorain County, about 35km east of Kadugli. War reached our village in July, and until September we were bombed by Antonovs. In July, SAF came to our village and destroyed everything. They started shooting and everyone ran. I witnessed my uncle and another man being slaughtered with a knife. My younger brother was also killed. We returned to our village the next day to bury them”.
“We walked to Yida with 6 families, everyone travelling together. On the first day Antonov bombardment killed an entire family except for one child. On the next day an Antonov bomb killed the mother and father of another family. One daughter is injured and is in Yida, another girl had to have her leg amputated and later died”.
“I have come here with my children. I had to leave my Mother behind and she has been shot by SAF. The SAF ask the villagers, ‘Where are your leaders and where are the guns stored?’. If you cannot answer, they will shoot you. Our village has now been burnt down”.
“There is no one left in our village and no one can reach the bore hole. Some people have been to the village bore hole recently, but they were shot by SAF. My stepbrother had been hiding in the mountain caves with his mother. A bomb was dropped on her by an Antonov and she lost her arm. Then my stepbrother went to the bore hole at night to get water. SAF went and killed him. We are having the funeral in the camp this afternoon”.
As I finish, I must sadly emphasise the dismay expressed by the people of the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile over what they see as the ineffectiveness of the response of the international community, particularly the United Kingdom, to the genocidal policies of the Khartoum Government. As we commemorate the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, let us remember that after the genocide in Rwanda it was famously stated, “Never again”—but “again” is happening now in Sudan. Until Her Majesty’s Government take effective action, they will be seen as condoning another genocide. I hope the Minister will reassure us that this will not be the case, and in so doing, bring much needed hope to the people now suffering so desperately in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, starts his speech, because of the scratched speaker we can be generous and allow an extra minute.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on once again articulating the gross violations of human rights that are taking place in Sudan, and on the intrepid way in which she brings us first-hand accounts of the suffering of the people in these regions. It really is beyond the call of duty and she does a great service to this House—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again but there is a Division in the Chamber so we shall adjourn for 10 minutes. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will start again.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I was in the middle of saying how wonderful the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is. I do not want to repeat everything I have said, but would add that I particularly admire the way in which she defies nasty regimes like that of al-Bashir and ignores the warnings that she must fill in paperwork before she visits the horror-stricken areas of South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur. We are indebted to her for bringing her first-hand accounts to your Lordships’ debates. I am also grateful to her for being a co-signatory of the letter she has mentioned—I am also a signatory—addressed to our own Secretary of State and the US Secretary of State. It is signed by Members of this Parliament and Members of the US Congress and calls on them both to move the UN Security Council to take robust action in order to halt these genocidal conflicts.
I will concentrate specifically on the aerial attacks which figure in that letter and which have so far not been dealt with satisfactorily by the UN Security Council. The Security Council last passed a resolution on Sudan a couple of weeks ago. It commended the efforts of UNAMID, the joint AU/UN mediation, the African Union high-level implementation panel and leaders in the region, and it reiterated its full support for all those authorities. But why is the panel of experts, which is mentioned in 13 out of the 18 operative paragraphs of the resolution, omitted from that list? Why has its report, which is crucial to any understanding of the reasons these conflicts are continuing indefinitely, not been published? Perhaps my noble friend can throw some light on that when she replies. Surely the world is entitled to know which members of the Security Council are objecting to publication, what in the panel’s report they do not like, and their reasons for the objections. The Security Council says that it will further study the panel’s recommendations and consider appropriate next steps, but that process will also presumably be shrouded in secrecy.
Under paragraph 6 of Security Council Resolution 1591 of March 2005, which was reaffirmed in the latest resolution, the council demanded an immediate cessation of offensive military flights over the Darfur region and asked the AU ceasefire commission to share information on this matter with the panel of experts. However, the panel was not charged with investigating the aerial attacks in Darfur, nor has it specifically been asked now to report on the bombing of South Kordofan and Blue Nile. The current resolution demands in the preamble, but not in the operative paragraphs that are governed by chapter 7, that aerial bombardments should cease. Will my noble friend explain whether this means that there is no binding force on the Government of Sudan? What other explanation is there for that separation from the chapter 7 provisions?
According to Radio Dabanga on 6 February, bombing by the Sudanese Air Force Antonovs has recently intensified, destroying the villages of Kiro and Sharafa, and killing civilians in the Dalma area. Al Arabiya News reported that four civilians were killed and 37 wounded when the air force attacked Derib al Reih village in South Darfur last Thursday. The Antonovs are also busy in Blue Nile. Already, more than 200,000 refugees have fled to South Sudan, and the people who remain are demoralised into inactivity, leading to food shortage and malnutrition. The Nuba Reports website said that in South Kordofan an Antonov bombed Ngortang village on February 17, killing five civilians.
These attacks and many others are designed to spread terror and force black Africans across the frontier to join the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are destitute in the northern states of South Sudan. This is a crime against humanity that deserves a proportionate response to replace the ineffectual and repetitive expressions of concern by the UN Secretary-General, the AU and others. The expert panel’s mandate should be extended to require its report to the Security Council every 90 days to include details of every attack by the Sudanese Air Force or ground forces on civilians in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. If the Security Council does not agree to that proposal, as seems only too probable, a coalition of the willing should provide the funding to a suitable NGO to research and publish such a report.
Again, assuming that the Security Council is unwilling to act, this coalition of the willing should seek to dissuade Ukraine from selling or leasing ostensibly civilian Antonovs to Sudan, thereby escaping the military embargo, but which are likely to be converted for military use. This same coalition might commission the NGO to carry out a survey of the origins of spares for the Antonovs and their engines. Will my noble friend confirm that those suppliers would be violating the embargo?
One suggestion made by Dr Eric Reeves of Smith College in Massachusetts is that Khartoum should be warned that every time the bombers kill civilians a drone will be sent to destroy one of the aircraft at El Obeid airbase. There is an emerging international norm of responsibility to protect, which states that when a state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and, even more so, when the state is committing crimes against humanity against its own citizens, the international community should intervene with force after peaceful measures, including sanctions, have been tried and failed. That norm assumes that the Security Council would invoke the R2P under chapter 7, as in the case of Libya.
However, the use of drones across international frontiers, without the sanction of the Security Council, is already practised against terrorist targets. The Antonovs are being used to commit acts of terrorism against civilians, and taking them out, one by one, in response would be a counterterrorist activity. Will my noble friend consider that suggestion and will the Government in any case explain how otherwise, in the absence of any significant changes either in the panel of experts’ mandate or the sanctions regime, the Government expect any let-up in the suffering of millions of people in Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan over the coming year?
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I express my thanks again to my noble friend Lady Cox. She is a tireless campaigner on this issue and a voice for the voiceless. I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said earlier.
It is always difficult in these short debates to know whether to signal impatience with official delay or to express some hope of change to come. There have been so many cliff-hangers in Sudan, when agreement seems just around the corner and then drifts away from sight. Once again, here we are waiting for a final agreement on oil, Abyei, the borders and humanitarian access, most of which were foreseen in the comprehensive peace agreement. Meanwhile, as we have heard, the bombs continue to fall and people in Darfur, Kordofan and elsewhere continue to flee or to live in a state of near desperation that is difficult to convey in our environment.
I have hopes for the New Dawn Charter group which signed a document in Kampala on 5 January. It need not cause President al-Bashir any alarm. It should be seen as a positive move. It is not revolutionary and it would bring a little more sense into Sudan’s chaotic political chessboard. Al-Bashir has to see that the majority of Sudanese would prefer a new way forward that would provide a degree of stability to the economy, even if it does not satisfy the basic human rights that Tunisia and Egypt have identified, if not implemented.
Our Government, having rightly denounced the recent clampdown on civil society in Sudan, will surely encourage this process diplomatically and rigorously if there is to be any sign of a Sudanese spring. But if students, teachers, journalists and members of NGOs are going to be oppressed indefinitely, and limited press freedom further curtailed, something must snap. That may be inside the ruling junta. We have to take into account that the Sudanese temperament may not be suited to any version of the Arab spring. In my experience, the Sudanese are not like north Africans. They are an exceptionally tolerant people who have accepted a low level of freedom and have put up with an unnecessarily autocratic, bullying and often incompetent regime. It is a vast country run by about five people.
It is hardly possible to conceive of a unified state in Sudan. Instead of devolution there has been continuous warring between Khartoum and the regions. The centre’s authority depends entirely on intermittent military aggression. As we have heard, South Kordofan in particular has been the victim of constant aerial bombardment, with the Nuba people suffering untold human rights abuse and near starvation away from the eyes of the world.
In Darfur, the Government have carried on with the bombing of villages and Khartoum has made it a virtual no-go area for NGOs and humanitarian agencies. Another ceasefire was signed in Doha between the Government of Sudan and the JEM on February l0, and Qatar has announced a donors’ conference in April. But, as always, such deals are as elusive as the various parties to them and no one believes that peace is around the corner. The 10-year anniversary, though, must provide a new impetus to the long-standing campaign to persuade the Sudan Government to co-operate with repeated UN and AU resolutions, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
An urgent priority must be the border settlement, with Abyei still a flashpoint while its boundaries remain uncertain. Concordis International has been doing valuable preparatory work, as some of us heard this week, alongside the AU High Level Implementation Panel and other interested parties. Importantly, this takes account of the regular seasonal migration across the borders. This work on the disputed sections is absolutely essential. Reuters has repeated reports from South Sudan of an incursion earlier this month into Upper Nile by unknown militia and a troop build-up, again, around the Heglig oil field close to Unity State, which recalls the brief SPLA occupation of the oil field last April, which brought the two countries to the brink of war. The implementation of the various elements of the CPA has been lamentably neglected, not just by north and south but by the international community, including ourselves. Seen from the West, Sudan has remained just below the horizon of the Arab spring. To make up for this deficit of awareness, there is no doubt in my mind that the UK must maintain and not downgrade its special relationship with both Sudan and South Sudan.
Several of us in the Sudan all-party group have been impressed by the quality of the FCO’s Sudan unit, which has taken the trouble to keep us informed. However, I have been concerned lately that there could be staff changes in the unit as a result of the recession and administrative savings. I hope that the noble Baroness can reassure us that no such cuts in the unit are forthcoming and that the FCO still gives the highest possible priority to this work. It is really important that simply because the CPA has been superseded, the UK, as a member of the troika backing up the CPA, does not lose its diplomat leadership.
Finally, may I ask the Minister, who I know has particular experience of and interest in Sudan, where Sudan is on the US Government’s world map—assuming they have moved on from the “axis of evil”—although we have not heard anything to the contrary. I notice that Sudan was left out of the Foreign Secretary’s recent RUSI speech on terrorism, which covered whole swathes of north Africa, including Mali. Perhaps she could reassure us that while we need to remain alert on this issue, close intelligence co-operation with an indicted Sudanese president is not a necessary prerequisite to security in the UK or the US.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I, too am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for once again bringing the circumstances of this deeply troubled region to our attention. Tragically, since our last debate on this subject in October, the humanitarian situation has continued to be a matter of grave concern. I am afraid that the political deliberations, which the UK Government properly continues to support, appear to be little more than a smokescreen, as the Sudanese Government clearly have absolutely no intention of providing humanitarian access to South Kordofan and Blue Nile states from the north.
In particular, it seems that the vote to create the new state of Southern Sudan has led the Government of Sudan to make southerners accept the consequences of their vote: “You wanted your own country, now go and live in it”. Southerners are being asked to go south. This is, in one sense, entirely understandable—if not entirely defensible—in terms of making people accept responsibility for the choices they have made. However, the human consequences are appalling. The overall drive seems to be to create a single country with a single culture and a single religion. This process is enhanced by the drive to have a single language, Arabic—hence the problem with the marginalization of the Nuba and the continuing attrition in the Nuba mountains.
We in the church continue to hear from aid agencies and our fellow bishops in both Sudanese states of continued bombing, targeting civilian homes, markets, schools, fields and so on. Those stranded, unable or unwilling to flee their homes to the safety of South Sudan, are left to forage for food and water under cover from the bombs. It really is a desperate situation and a tragedy that the international community still appears to be taking little heed of what is looking increasingly like genocide, or at the very least, yet another major ethnic cleansing working itself out. Thousands of people have fled and the humanitarian cost is being paid for by neighbouring states which are absorbing them.
Conditions in the refugee camps remain poor but stable. There are increasing reports of disease outbreaks, and overcrowding is becoming a greater issue in most locations. During the dry season, basic service provision of food, water and healthcare is present and available to the population, but education is lacking. UNHCR will not allow education facilities to be initiated by international NGOs in, for example, Yida for fear that it will encourage refugees to stay.
In our debate in October I raised the concern that, although DflD recognises the role of the church, it is highly unfortunate that UNHCR and other NGOs do not always adopt the same policy. The churches and other religious bodies have a key role to play in both delivery and mediation, but often the UNHCR treats them as special interest groups without a general humanitarian agenda. In the present context of Sudan, the churches are doing an heroic job with limited resources. The young and fast-growing Episcopal Church of Sudan is resilient, but it is suffering from the forced departure of southerners, many of whom have exercised key leadership and responsibility in and through the church and its aid programmes. It is further the case that foreigners with connections to the churches are being told to leave. Others are being visited by the security services and feel intimidated. Each of our dioceses in Sudan is facing the need both to care for displaced and often traumatised people at the same time as losing some of its leading people to the south.
I welcome the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to addressing these concerns, and the priorities set by DfID for the coming year are to be applauded. However, I have four specific questions and it would be helpful if we could have some clear answers to them for the record. The first question is: what pressure are Her Majesty’s Government putting on the Government of Sudan to stop the bombing and the violence in the Nuba mountains? Secondly, what humanitarian provision are Her Majesty’s Government making for displaced people and refugees, especially in a context where southerners in Sudan are being pushed out to the south? Thirdly, although it is hard to work out the specific strategy or consistency in this, are the UK Government aware of and responding to the expulsion of expatriates from Sudan after interrogation and with no reasons being given? Finally, what support are the Government giving to those being victimised by the Sudanese Government, including those whose schools and institutions have been taken over and appropriated by the security services, thus helping to make an already bad situation even worse?
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I join the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter and other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Cox for her indomitable persistence and courage, and her determination to open the eyes of the world to things that we do not always want to see. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his remarks about the letter being sent to the United Nations Security Council to which I am also a signatory. I hope that when the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, comes to reply, she will say what Her Majesty’s Government’s formal response will be to that important letter, which is being signed by representatives from jurisdictions all around the world.
I first visited South Sudan during the civil war. More than 2 million people died during that conflict. In areas like Torit which I visited, I saw at first hand the terrible carnage that was being inflicted as the result of Antonov bombers simply pounding away at communities day in and day out. As we have heard, it is now 10 years since the violence erupted in Darfur. Since my own visit to Darfur in 2004, and the report which I then published, If This Isn’t Genocide, What Is?, some 2 million people have been displaced. Between 200,000 and 300,000 people have been killed and 90% of the villages have been razed to the ground. Ten years later, the systematic genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing is continuing; those responsible have not been brought to justice; and the violence for which they are responsible has become the order of the day in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. This represents an appalling repetition of history, making these regions dangerous and lawless places. The Khartoum regime must accept the lion’s share of the responsibility for unleashing a torrent of violence on its own people.
In 2013 alone, a further 100,000 Darfuris have been displaced. HIV is rampant, children are malnourished, and even at the height of the violence, when Darfur was in the headlines, aid did not reach two-thirds of the population. The international community claimed that its aid programme was a success because the aim was to help those people who had fled to the camps. But what of the families struggling to survive in the villages in rural areas? More than half the population of Darfur has no water source. Almost a quarter of the population, including children, walk more than six miles to reach water in winter. In the summer “hungry” months, many walk more than 20 miles. Walking for water continues to be dangerous, with frequent reports of attacks.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on the report in the Guardian on 21 February that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the aid watchdog, had criticised DfID for a water supply project that it said was poorly designed and brought limited benefit to the people whom it was supposed to help. The commission said:
“DfID needs to rethink its approach to engaging in chronic emergencies”.
It criticised it for,
“neglecting the political and institutional challenges involved in improving … water supply”.
It went on to say that DfID should work with partners with a proven track record rather than use interventions that risked,
“diminishing returns and aid dependence”.
I wonder what lessons have been learnt from that experience.
Meanwhile, the killing continues unabated. At the weekend, Reuters reported that recent fighting had caused the deaths of 51 people and wounded 62 more. Simultaneously, it reported that the Sudanese Government had put out a statement claiming that their forces had killed scores of insurgents in the border areas of Kordofan and Blue Nile. Aerial bombardment there was sustained and unremitting, with up to 60 bombs a day—and 400 bombs in Blue Nile in a month.
In Kordofan and Blue Nile, it is once again civilians—mainly women and children—who are caught in the crossfire of the violence. Some have been attacked from the air and the ground and have been denied access to humanitarian assistance for more than 20 months. I raised these crimes against humanity in your Lordships’ House in June and July 2011. The then Minister told me that the Government were “very concerned” about the 11,000 internally displaced people at the time. I drew attention to UN Security Council Resolution 1590, which required,
“protection of vulnerable groups including internally displaced persons”,
and,
“necessary action to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence”.
I asked if the resolution had been put into effect in South Kordofan. It was not worth the paper it was written on.
Through the remainder of 2011 and again in the first months of 2012, as thousands more people were displaced, I questioned Ministers about the failure of the international community and about what Dr Mukesh Kapila said about the second genocide of the 21st century unfolding—Darfur was the first. Dr Kapila is a former British and United Nations official who presumably knew what he was talking about when he said that more than 1 million people were now affected. Given that the ICC has indicted the head of state in Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, and the governor of South Kordofan, Ahmed Mohammed Haroun, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, how can we justify full diplomatic relations with mass murderers and fugitives from justice? Have we not considered at least downgrading those relationships? What is being done to help the ICC enforce arrest warrants in those cases? I ask those questions again.
In 2012 I criticised the paralysis of the international community. Two years ago, Ministers stated:
“Reports of such atrocities will … be investigated and, if they prove to be true, those responsible will need to be brought to account”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. WA 294.]
Nine months later, they stated:
“We continue … to seek urgent access to those most affected by the conflict”.—[Official Report, 9/11/11; col. WA 66.]
On 17 May 2012, I asked again how it was that the second genocide of the 21st century was unfolding in South Kordofan. I asked how the Government could continue to do business as usual with a regime that was led by someone who has been indicted for war crimes. I might add, how can Germany—an ally of ours in the European Union—justify recently holding a business conference encouraging people to invest money in Sudan?
The United Nations now estimates that close to 1 million people have been displaced or severely affected by violence in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. How many more have to be displaced? Independent experts now warn that parts of South Kordofan and Blue Nile face the very real prospect of a man-made famine by April 2013. How many more people have to be malnourished or starve to death? On 25 January the African Union demanded an end to hostilities, the granting of humanitarian access and a commitment to adhere to a clear timeline for direct political talks. Now is not the time for combat or war weariness.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)
My Lords, as all noble Lords are present, we may resume.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, before the Division, I was about to end. I would like to complete my remarks by simply referring to a note I received recently from the courageous bishop of El Obeid, Bishop Macram Gassis. He wrote:
“The suffering of my flock torments me. The aerial bombardment is incessant. … I plead with the international community to save the Nuba people from extermination”.
He concluded:
“The barrel of the gun will never bring peace; on the contrary it will simply create more hatred and violence”.
Surely those are sentiments with which we can all agree.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her unswerving determination, and to other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Indeed, pretty much everybody has once again gone through the events of the past 10 years: the mass murders; the ethnic cleansing of black Africans and the attacks on their culture and language, which is a distinctive part of ethnic cleansing; the direct attacks, including aerial attacks, on civilians; the use of Chinese and Iranian munitions; and the displacements of very large numbers of people. The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and, indeed, all of us may feel—I do not mean this in any frivolous sense—a certain “Groundhog Day” sensation about parts of this debate as we have been going round these issues for a long time.
I sifted out what I thought were the important notes made on visits to Khartoum, Darfur and Juba. The notes related to the first visits that I made in November 2005 and to Juba again later that month. With the exception of one leader of South Sudan, I do not think that I ever saw the same people twice. The turnover, and hence the difficulty in dealing with anybody, was absolutely monumental.
If I may say so, the issue is not just about Sudan: it is not that limited geographically. President Bashir’s impact endangers the entire region’s security right across a swathe of Africa. John Garang tried to stabilise the south and his death was a tragedy. The referendum seemed like a valid mechanism, but we all know that the outcome was always likely to lead to a further breakdown, whatever our aspirations for it, because of the contested oil rights and oil wealth in that area.
One edge of South Darfur was always impacted, in my experience. Blue Nile was always a problem. The Ugandans had never managed to successfully deal with their northern border. The Lord’s Resistance Army and Kony, its leader, routinely went into South Sudan and many other places. I always believed that President Museveni, for all the talk about what he would do, made no real attempt to make sure that security was there either. The people of north Uganda were driven from the land, frequently by people who were moving backwards and forwards out of South Sudan. The issues spread into the west of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and into the Central African Republic; it spreads across borders in as much as there are borders.
Darfur, as we have heard today, is experiencing the 10th anniversary of an appalling war, which spreads across the borders, fairly routinely, into Chad. There, the Janjaweed gangs have been assisted by the Khartoum regime and have then gone on to wreak even greater havoc. The aerial terror that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, illustrated so clearly is extremely important. I recall the offer made by Colonel Gaddafi, who said that he could understand the peoples of that region in a way in which he did not expect us to, and was perfectly prepared to intervene. I said that I thought it sounded like an offer to interfere and make things worse. Of course, there was always the prospect of things spreading across the Maghreb, through the northern borders.
The issues are in some cases realistic and need proper attention. It is not always about issues of wickedness, although goodness knows there is enough of that. However, the contestation between agriculturalists and herders for areas that are in any sense arable, as desertification becomes a problem of real economic consequence, is very important. There are many more issues in Darfur: voting rights, security, food and water have all been mentioned today.
I recall a couple of attempts by the African Union force to secure a degree of peace which were fundamentally undermined by President al-Bashir. The Canadians had provided armoured vehicles to protect the Nigerian peace force, who were in soft-sided vehicles. While I was there, six Nigerian soldiers were killed through soft-sided vehicles that were fired upon. Those armoured vehicles took ages to get into Darfur because they were in Dakkar and nobody would let them move forward. It took a special meeting in which Javier Solana, then the High Representative of the EU, took part to get them in. We got more or less no help from Russia, and occasionally just a little hint that there might be a more sympathetic response from some of the Chinese leadership.
These factors are all important, and are a very diverse set of factors to introduce at this stage of your Lordships’ debate. However, there is one constant among all of them: President al-Bashir. The issues for which he must stand trial, and for which there should be no impunity, link all the things that pretty much every noble Lord said in this evening’s debate.
I join others in asking essentially the same questions of the Minister tonight. The critical things are what we can do in these unpromising circumstances; whether it is possible to get the United Nations, through the operation of its committee of inquiry, or the Security Council to do what needs to be done—the letter should be an important stimulus to the Security Council in setting those things out; and whether we believe that we can have a greater impact in those areas.
Briefly, the role of the United Kingdom has sometimes been a little confusing. I do not know whether I should make an apology for it, but it certainly was between the FCO and DfID over a period of time. I found, quite often, that because DfID was in control of so much more of the money than the FCO ever was that DfID officials were the only people to whom anybody wanted to talk. It often meant that more standard forms of diplomatic and state intervention became more difficult. It may be that we need to rethink those things. I do not say this in a way that is at all aggressive. I just think that when we have identified things that really have not worked, it falls to us to think—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did when he made some other important suggestions—about how we might improve.
I conclude by saying that it seems absolutely clear that we have failed the people of this war-torn region. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made this point very eloquently as well. What we have to do is identify how we can help generate the conditions in which there is a Sudan that is peaceful, democratic and prosperous, which respects human rights and the rule of law, and whose people share equally in the nation’s wealth and development, with all Sudanese people being treated equally, regardless of their race or religion, and in which Sudan is an active and benign member of the international community. The regional security issues are far too severe for us to do anything else.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for tabling today’s timely debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their informed contributions. I also commend the continued work of the Associate Parliamentary Group for the Republic of Sudan and South Sudan, of which the noble Baroness is a member, as are other noble Lords who are here today.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, for bringing his experience of the region to this debate and the tone with which he dealt with the debate. Of course, this is the second time I have had the opportunity to participate in a debate on Sudan and South Sudan, both of which remain high foreign policy priorities for this Government, but other Ministers before me have debated this topic on numerous occasions, in lengthier debates and in Oral Questions.
Our focus this evening has been on the internal conflicts within Sudan but I will also take the opportunity to update noble Lords on the broader context of the relations between the two countries. When I spoke about this subject in October last year, there was reason for cautious optimism about relations between Sudan and South Sudan. We and our international partners welcomed the signing of nine agreements on 27 September, and we made clear that we expected to see their full implementation, as well as resolution of the remaining disputes between the two countries. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, there have been many cliff-hangers on this journey, and this appears to be another one. It is deeply frustrating that since the signing of those agreements we have seen a lack of progress in their implementation, despite further negotiations occurring on a number of occasions thereafter.
At the start of the year hopes were raised again that we might see progress when the Presidents of Sudan and South Sudan met on 5 January and were able to recommit to making rapid progress on implementation. However, by the time the Presidents met again at the African Union summit later that month, it appeared that the good faith that had previously been shown had now gone, leaving no obvious way forward beyond the vague promise of further discussions. Like other noble Lords, I find that deeply frustrating and disappointing.
It is now crucial for both countries to take concrete and substantial steps forward on implementation of those agreements, particularly on security arrangements, demilitarisation of the border zones and allowing the export of oil. The UK Government will continue to give their full support to the African Union high-level implementation panel as it seeks to find a lasting solution to these issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, our concern about relations between Sudan and South Sudan should not lead us to overlook the serious conflict going on within Sudan’s borders. Ten years after the outbreak of significant violence, we remain deeply concerned by the continuing conflict in Darfur and the resulting humanitarian situation. More than 300,000 people have died as a result of the conflict in the past decade and approximately 2 million have been displaced, the majority of whom are still reliant on humanitarian aid.
Recent clashes in the gold-mining area in North Darfur highlight that the nature of the conflict may have changed but its effects remain as concerning as ever. Since the start of this year, more than 100 villages have been destroyed and 100,000 people displaced. That is already half the total number of people displaced in 2012. We hope to use this anniversary period in the run-up to the donor conference to make progress on the ground and ensure that Darfur remains on the international agenda, including in the UN Security Council. The UK remains committed to seeing the causes of the conflict addressed. We will continue to support Darfur by responding to humanitarian needs, fostering development opportunities and promoting a peaceful political solution.
We support the Doha document for peace in Darfur, which contains welcome provisions to address the needs of ordinary Darfuris and bring justice for the crimes committed. However, implementation of the Doha document has been disappointingly slow and has not focused sufficiently on areas that will make the most difference to the security and basic needs of communities. We are pressing the Government of Sudan to honour their commitments under the agreement, encouraging rebel groups to end their violence and obstruction of the peace process, and also working closely with Qatar, which continues to take an international lead on this issue.
We are deeply concerned by the continuing conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile and the impact that it is having on the communities in those areas. Some of the consequences of the conflict have been graphically described this evening. The refusal to allow independent humanitarian access to civilians in all of these areas, particularly the rebel-held areas, is of deep concern. The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has told the Security Council that it believes that more than 1 million people have been displaced or severely affected by the conflict. We are working to ensure that the issue remains at the top of the international agenda, in particular within the African Union and the UN Security Council. The situation deserves the full and credible independent investigation that the Foreign Secretary called for at the start of the conflict, and for those responsible for abuses or international crimes to be held to account. This remains our position.
It is crucial that the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North comply with obligations to ensure humanitarian access and agree a full cessation of hostilities. The African Union has invited the parties to direct talks on 5 March. We are encouraging both sides to attend and to engage in serious talks without preconditions, focusing first on achieving a cessation of hostilities and full humanitarian access. Until that time, the UK teams in Juba and Khartoum will continue to work closely with the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, other donors and NGOs to ensure that assistance reaches all those in need who are accessible, and that we are ready to move rapidly to respond to a broader opening up of access.
I will respond to the specific issues that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about the provision of life-saving food and medical aid to civilians in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. All donors share the view that negotiated access from within Sudan is the best way of providing humanitarian assistance. Donors co-ordinate closely, and many of them are looking carefully at all options for getting aid to those in need. We currently judge that the risks of cross-border assistance mean that the UK should not pursue this approach at this stage.
The noble Baroness also asked what representations the UK had made on halting aerial bombardments in Darfur. The recent Panel of Experts report highlighted the Government of Sudan’s use of military aircraft in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1591. We condemn such actions and most recently expressed our concerns through the UN Security Council discussion adopting Resolution 2091, which extended the panel’s mandate for a further year.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked why the Panel of Experts report had not been published. I am pleased to inform him that a decision has been taken to publish the latest report on Darfur from the Panel of Experts. It has not yet appeared on the United Nations website, but my officials will pass on a copy to the noble Lord as soon as it becomes available. He also raised the question of whether the Government should consider the use of drones against Sudanese aircraft in Darfur. We argue consistently for the strict enforcement of UN sanctions in Darfur. It has not been possible to agree measures to toughen the sanctions regime in the United Nations Security Council, and any actions that we take must be consistent with existing UN Security Council resolutions.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked for reassurance that FCO resources for Sudan would not be reduced. I can assure him that Sudan remains a high priority for the FCO. There are many competing priorities, including in Africa, but no decision has been taken to reduce FCO resources devoted to Sudan and South Sudan. The opening of an embassy in Juba has meant an increase in overall staff resources over the past two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the question of the views of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and its criticism of the project in Darfur. We believe that this report is outdated. The UK has already transformed our humanitarian response in Sudan to help address the root causes of conflict rather than simply relying on emergency aid. It is disappointing not to see this reflected in the ICAI’s report. Our new programme will help the poorest people become better able to cope with the impact of conflict or man-made disasters, such as being able to access local markets and regular food supplies.
The noble Lord also asked about the potential denial of diplomatic status for senior members of the NCP. As we have set out before, at this stage the UK will maintain a diplomatic relationship with Sudan. We use our diplomatic relations with Sudan to press for the Government to resolve conflicts, address humanitarian and development needs and end human rights abuses. Having a senior ambassador in Khartoum ensures that we have influence and access to the right levels of government, as well as to a full range of political opposition and civil society groups. It is not ideal, but we feel that downgrading our relations would reduce our ability to achieve our objectives—indeed, any objectives—in Sudan.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter asked some quite specific questions: what support are we providing to those being victimised by the Government of Sudan? Our embassy in Sudan monitors the situation closely and makes regular representations to the Sudanese authorities. The specific question was raised about the humanitarian situation in South Sudan. Of course we remain extremely concerned about the refugee situation in both Unity and Upper Nile states caused by the influx of almost 180,000 refugees from South Kordofan and Blue Nile, as well as the wider humanitarian situation in South Sudan. My honourable friend Lynne Featherstone saw the refugee conditions for herself when she visited the camp in October.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked for a response to the letter to the UN Security Council; we look forward to receiving that letter and I can assure him that it will be considered seriously and responded to. I am acutely aware of the time. I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter asked about the expulsion of expatriates from Sudan. We are aware of a number of expatriates who have been expelled, in particular those with connections to religious organisations. We have raised these concerns with the Sudan ministry responsible for religious affairs and European Union colleagues are intending to make representations to the Minister of Justice.
In conclusion, we have come tantalisingly close to a settlement of the dispute on many occasions, but it will take a serious renewed effort in good faith from both countries to properly and peacefully settle their remaining differences. The international community will do what it can to bring the parties to the various internal conflicts into peace talks, and to address the humanitarian consequences, but Sudan will not be at peace until it addresses the inequalities and marginalisation that lie behind all of these conflicts.
The AU high-level implementation panel and other countries will have a vital role to play, and we should commend their efforts so far. For our part, we stand ready to add value to the process in whatever way we can, and to work closely with our international partners. It is a priority for us to ensure that agreements are finalised and implemented and for all conflicts to be resolved. We want to have a positive and constructive bilateral relationship with both Sudan and South Sudan through our bilateral aid programme in both countries, and we remain fully committed to delivering humanitarian aid and development projects. We will continue to provide assistance to respond to the humanitarian needs of conflict affected populations, to support security and access to justice, to build basic services and to encourage a more transparent and accountable government in Sudan and South Sudan.
House of Lords
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Economy: Rating Agencies
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the role of rating agencies and the impact of any downgrade of the United Kingdom’s rating.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton)
My Lords, last Friday Moody’s downgraded the UK rating to AA1, with a stable outlook. It says that the UK’s credit-worthiness remains extremely high but warns that it could downgrade the UK rating further in the event of,
“reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation”.
The credit rating is one of the important benchmarks for any country but near-historic low gilt yields continue to reflect the credibility earned by the Government’s economic strategy.
Lord Barnett
I think I thank the Minister for that Answer. If it is all so good now, why did he covet the AAA rating so strongly? Is it not true that the United States had a downgrading, and that it was not a problem and interest rates remain low? Another risk is that the pound will drop further. If it does, there is a real risk to lenders, who could lose a lot of money as it is repaid in downgraded pounds. In those circumstances, would the Chancellor be minded to do anything at all?
Lord Deighton
I thank the noble Lord for those observations, which contain several of different questions. If you review Moody’s analysis of the UK economy you could not see a stronger recommendation of the Government’s policy of fiscal consolidation. I commend it to everybody as background to policy and why it is the appropriate one in these circumstances.
On the specific question about the impact of currency movements on the exposure of various lenders, my experience in those markets tells me that lenders manage their currency exposures very effectively and that the currency devaluation should not increase those particular exposures.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will my noble friend confirm that it is the same rating agencies that are apparently of such concern to the Opposition which told us that the junk collections of mortgages, which in part caused the financial crisis, were AAA-rated? Should we not look at what is happening in the real economy rather than at what rating agencies are saying about it? Is it not true that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is presiding over a remarkable situation, given the shambles that he inherited from the previous Government?
Lord Deighton
As always, I thank my noble friend for his important observations. There are, again, several issues in there. First, he is absolutely right—Moody’s refers to this—that two things have caused this downgrade. The first is the sluggish growth of the global economy, which has slowed down the British economy; and the second is the very high levels of public and domestic debt, and the difficulty in driving those down.
On the second point, with respect to the credibility of the rating agencies, there are some very important issues surrounding that, particularly when one discusses complex securities such as the ones that we had in the mortgage-backed market. Frankly, with respect to the sovereign market, all the information used to determine credit assessments is perfectly visible to everyone, which is why the markets’ reaction to the downgrade on Friday was so measured.
Lord Peston
My Lords, bearing in mind that these agencies give the same grade to an enormous and widely different range of borrowers, leading economists pointed out a long time ago that they cannot be, and should not be, taken seriously. Also, is the Minister aware that all the best economic research shows that one major force exacerbating the economic troubles of the past few years has been the rating agencies? Would he remind the House who is supposed to be regulating these agencies and why they have not intervened? If they have not intervened, is it not about time that someone did something about them? These agencies are a real danger to the survival of the world economy, and I am amazed that the Chancellor himself takes them seriously.
Lord Deighton
The noble Lord makes some very important observations. First, as I am sure he knows, one of the rating agencies is being sued by the US Government, reflecting the very concerns that he brings out. With respect to relatively simple credit considerations, and in terms of the UK economy the information is all out there, the Chancellor’s economic policy and the performance of the UK economy is evaluated every second of every day by the financial markets. The verdict of those markets is reflected in our historically low gilt yields. This morning we were trading in the 10-year gilt below 2%, which is the most profound commentary on the success of the UK Government’s current economic policy.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the underlying issue is surely growth. Yesterday, Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England, floated the idea of levying a penalty on banks that park their money at the central bank rather than putting it into the real economy. What comment does the Minister have to make on that strategy?
Lord Deighton
My noble friend raises the question of monetary policy. We have had a number of debates on creativity to restore a focus on growth and not purely on short-term inflation targeting. All these ideas are welcome and demonstrate the importance of generating growth. We should have the debate but be very focused on sticking to a monetary policy that understands the importance of the medium-term inflation target, while accepting a degree of flexibility around output.
Some specific measures that the Government have taken, such as FLS, were recommended in the Moody’s review as a very positive sign, so other ideas should certainly be debated and considered.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, could the Minister tell the House whether it is better to borrow to fund the fiscal costs of negligible growth or to fund the expansion in investment and growth?
Lord Deighton
My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the specific question of my noble friend. It is better to have an entirely consistent strategy of fiscal consolidation to ensure that we regain our credibility in the financial markets so that we can continue to borrow at these historic low rates. If we have a choice between funding capital spend—let us call it that—and current spend, all other things being equal, I would choose capital spend. We saw that in the Autumn Statement, when the Government switched £5.5 billion, if my memory is correct, into financing capital spending because that yields better to improve the growth process. However, it all needs to be done in the context of balancing other important consumer and political objectives.
Dr David Livingstone
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Dr David Livingstone.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, Scotland Office Ministers and officials are working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the David Livingstone 200 partnership to assist with a programme of celebrations to mark the 200th anniversary of Dr Livingstone’s birth. As part of the wider programme, the Scotland Office will host a commemorative reception at Dover House, which will follow on from a service that will be held in Westminster Abbey on 19 March, the actual 200th anniversary of Dr Livingstone’s birth.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I thank my noble friend most warmly for that Answer. Is he aware that, in view of David Livingstone’s reputation as a missionary, an explorer and, above all, a campaigner against the slave trade, commemorations will take place next month in Zambia, Tanzania and especially in Malawi? Will he tell the House whether there are any activities planned in Scotland itself, apart from the excellent news that the museum at Blantyre will be revamped by the National Trust?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to Dr Livingstone. It is significant that in the post-colonial age some of the place names associated with David Livingstone, such as Blantyre and the name Livingstone itself, have remained. That speaks volumes about the contribution that he made and the standing in which he is still held. For example, in Zambia there is a programme called Livingstone 2013, in which the British High Commission has been very actively involved. My noble friend also asks about Scotland. The National Museum of Scotland has a special commemorative exhibition, which has run since November until April this year. There will be events on the day. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is planning a flagship event at Abercrombie House in East Kilbride, the offices of the Department for International Development, on 18 March and, very interestingly, a time capsule is proposed, linking children from Malawi and Scotland, which will be Skype-linked on 19 March.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, the Prime Minister has spoken about a shameful episode in our imperial past, the Amritsar massacre, and quite rightly so. Would it not be very valuable if the Prime Minister could speak, perhaps not only in Scotland, about a pacific, idealist, Christian visionary, like David Livingstone, who presents a very contrary view of our imperial past and perhaps shows how this country should behave towards colonised people but seldom manages to do so?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord makes a very important point about the contribution that David Livingstone made. There will be commemorations, not least in the service at Westminster Abbey. I am not aware that the Prime Minister will attend, but certainly representatives of the United Kingdom Government and I think of the Scottish Government will attend and we have sought to invite high commissioners and ambassadors in London of countries with which David Livingstone was associated.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Will the Minister accept that the National Trust has done an extremely good job in conserving David Livingstone’s house in Blantyre, where he was brought up with his family in one room in extreme poverty? One of the moving aspects of his life was that, when he set off, he had only his medical equipment, his Bible and the clothes in which he stood up.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I echo the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, particularly in paying tribute to the National Trust for Scotland, which has been very much involved in the David Livingstone 200 partnership and has made an important contribution not only with regard to the house at Blantyre but also with regard to a number of the commemorative events in Scotland.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, Dr David Livingstone was born in the town of Blantyre, which I had the honour and privilege to represent in the House of Commons. I join in the congratulations and thanks for all the celebrations planned. However, just a few years ago, the David Livingstone Centre in Blantyre, to which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, referred, was in danger of closing, and it was South Lanarkshire Council which took the lead by involving the National Trust and other agencies so that the centre is now thriving again. Will the Minister join me in recognising the role of South Lanarkshire Council in this, particularly that of the leader, Councillor Edward McAvoy?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, in this particular case, I believe that tributes to South Lanarkshire Council are deserved. I am aware that it took those steps. I think that I am right in saying that South Lanarkshire Council also plays an important role in the Scotland-Malawi Partnership. The University of Edinburgh calculated that up to £30 million in terms of expertise, time and money is contributed by those who are partners in the Scotland-Malawi Partnership.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the current membership of the Scotland-Malawi Partnership, which is more than 600 individuals and organisations, embodying the mutual respect that was so much embodied by Dr Livingstone back in the 19th century? Given Dr Livingstone’s campaign against the slave trade, will the Government take the opportunity this year to redouble their efforts internationally regarding the 2.5 million individuals around the world who are reckoned to be in slavery or prostitution as a result of people trafficking?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I take the opportunity to note the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has made to the Scotland-Malawi Partnership. I know his personal commitment to this. I take and endorse his point that a proper tribute to Dr Livingstone’s campaigns against slavery would be for us to continue and indeed increase our efforts to tackle human trafficking. I attended a very useful meeting with a number of representatives in Scotland representing the UK Government on the day last year when we marked our commitment internationally to tackle human trafficking. That would be a worthy memorial to Dr Livingstone’s efforts.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government intend to amend the Act to give the Information Commissioner more time to prosecute alleged offences under Section 77 of the Act and introduce a dedicated exemption for prepublication research. Other parts of our response to post-legislative scrutiny will be implemented through secondary legislation codes of practice and guidance.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister has just said about giving the Information Commissioner new powers but I hope he will recognise that suggestions have been made by other Ministers—not this Minister, whose commitment to freedom of information is exemplary—that they will tighten the Act. I hope this Minister will recognise that tightening the Act in the way that has been suggested will damage transparency. He will recall that the previous Government at one point proposed to increase fees for accessing freedom of information requests and then dropped the proposal when they realised the damage that that would do to transparency. Are the Government now downplaying that risk to transparency, and doing so at a time when the Francis report into Mid Staffordshire shows just how dangerous damaging transparency can be?
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is true that we are looking at other aspects of the post-legislative scrutiny through secondary legislation. However, I can assure the noble Lord that my commitment, and the Government’s commitment, to transparency and freedom of information, which I see as twin tracks of government policy, remains as steadfast as it has always been. Ideas and information about other aspects of the post-legislative scrutiny fully justified the exercise and I compliment my right honourable friend Sir Alan Beith and his committee for doing an excellent job. It has done much to embed freedom of information in our political culture.
Lord McNally
It is something that was considered by Sir Alan’s committee and recommended as a good idea. It has its attractions, but it also has its downsides. On balance, the Government decided to retain anonymity for freedom of information requests because they felt that not doing so would inhibit people coming forward with such requests.
Lord McNally
I hear what the House is saying. It was a very tight judgment and a lot of discussion went on in government about it. There certainly was not any sinister desire by the Government to protect information. It was more a decision resulting from a very tight discussion that the idea of anonymity for those making requests was still an important principle to preserve.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, the Government have been successful in extending the Freedom of Information Act in line with the coalition agreement by adding to the bodies which are subject to the Act and by providing for electronic data sets to be made available. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no reversal of this process, and in particular, that there will be no extension of the Government’s power of veto and no further fees, particularly for appeals to information tribunals?
Lord McNally
I do not think I can give an absolute assurance on that. We decided to retain the veto following discussions that had gone on since the start of the freedom of information debate about whether, at the very heart of government, a safe space was needed for genuine discussions. At the moment, I am having discussions with colleagues about these ideas and principles and in due course I will inform the House and give it an opportunity to comment on this. It is always an interesting balance. We have faced this problem for a decade or more since we debated these principles in this House. Indeed, we had a very interesting debate a few months ago where a whole clutch of former mandarins gave their opinions about what is called the “chilling effect” of freedom of information. I do not accept that there is such a chilling effect, but I do accept that it is right—as is the proper intention of the post-legislative review of the Act—that we look at how the Act is working and we will come back with recommendations in the areas raised by my noble friend.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Dubs, does the Minister not accept that his response and the Government’s current position on freedom of information are flatly contrary to the position of openness and transparency in protecting those who ask the questions and not protecting at any level those who are being asked the questions? Does he not accept that this is totally contrary to the principles and ethos of the Freedom of Information Act?
Lord McNally
On the contrary, my Lords. If you are asking questions of power, there is some reassurance in the fact that the system giving you the right to ask those questions allows for anonymity. It certainly is not an abuse of power; it is rather, as the debates have shown over the years, that anonymity gives protection and encouragement to those who want information.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
When the Government receive, as they do from time to time, independent legal advice, is there any reason why that advice should not be made available under the Freedom of Information Act? Should there be an absolute rule against independent legal advice being made available?
Lord McNally
Whenever the noble and learned Lord rises to his feet, a certain tingle goes down my spine—doubly so when he is asking about a matter legal. I am not sighted on that entirely and I would feel far safer if I were to take advice and write to him.
Overseas Aid
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the overseas aid budget is being earmarked for peacekeeping in areas of conflict.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the Government are committed to scaling up their work in fragile and conflict-affected states. We have committed to spending 30% of official development assistance—ODA—by 2014-15 to support these countries and to tackle the drivers of instability. In 2011, £58.7 million of ODA was spent on multilateral peacekeeping operations. This represented less than 1% of the UK ODA spend in 2011 and we anticipate that it will remain at a similar level.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, I can see the virtue of closer co-operation between peacekeeping and development programmes, but what steps will be taken to reduce the risk of humanitarian workers and beneficiaries of such aid being seen as agents of a foreign power, especially in fragile and unstable countries?
Baroness Northover
The right reverend Prelate is right. Those working in these areas are at huge risk anyway. That comes home very strongly. I have just come back from Pakistan and the difficulties of working in such areas are very clear. It is very important to draw the distinction that the right reverend Prelate makes. However, given that we are acutely aware of that, as are the organisations, I can assure him that that will continue to be the case.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely clear that both the UK’s International Development Act and the OECD guidelines would be breached if the Prime Minister’s statement on using aid money for military purposes was to be implemented? Should the Prime Minister therefore be heeding the OECD and British law instead of trying to appease recalcitrant Tory Back-Benchers who oppose the ring-fencing of development aid?
Baroness Northover
I suggest that the noble Baroness reads what the Prime Minister said. She will find that it is perfectly consistent with the approach taken by her Government. We work across the MoD, the FCO and DfID to do what we can to tackle instability in some of the poorest countries. It is because they are fragile states that there are such levels of poverty and such a lack of development. That is why it is extremely important to work to support those countries. DfID’s conflict pool and the Building Stability Overseas strategy build on what the previous Government rightly did. This is controlled by the OECD definition of ODA, which does not allow spending for military uses. Therefore it could not come out of DfID’s budget. DfID needs to reach its 0.7% contribution to aid, and we are committed to that. If this came out of it, it would not reach that 0.7%.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, it is clear that peace and stability are critical not just in fragile states but in the development of all states. It would be helpful if my noble friend could clarify how Her Majesty’s Government will decide how far political interventions and interventions involving the Ministry of Defence will receive support. How will the proportions and the kind of help that will be given be decided? It would be helpful to know that to understand this better.
Baroness Northover
My noble friend is right to ask for that. It is extremely clear that the OECD defines what does and does not count as overseas development assistance. Most of our peacekeeping, for example, goes through the UN. Some 6% of that budget counts as ODA, and the rest does not. With the EU civilian missions, 100% counts under the ODA rules. This is extremely clearly defined. Where the MoD supports humanitarian assistance—the Navy, for example, supplies tents, as it did in Jamaica after the hurricane—that is counted as assisting and not as providing military equipment. These things are clearly defined.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate said, Labour supports a co-ordinated approach to tackling conflict that brings together defence, diplomacy and development. The Prime Minister’s attempt to suggest that aid money may be used to off-set deep defence cuts is misleading and will not stand up to scrutiny. I ask the noble Baroness to reassure this House that the absolute purpose of the proportion of money that we continue to spend is to alleviate property, improve basic services and support job creation, all of which are central to ending conflicts everywhere.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I have to say that the noble Lord is misleading. I suggest that he read the Prime Minister’s words. He says:
“Conflict states haven’t met a Millennium Development Goal between them”,
and that,
“it’s obviously true that if you can help deliver security and help provide stability … that is the base from which all development can proceed”.
We all agree about that. He does not say that he is filling in some MoD black hole; he is saying, as the noble Lord stated at the beginning of his question, that we need to work together to ensure that we establish security for people in these fragile states in order that development can build upon that.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, peacekeeping is obviously very important, but so is peacebuilding. Does the noble Baroness recognise that many of the areas that have traditionally been funded by overseas development aid, such as increasing the capacity of civil society, advancing women’s rights and strengthening and improving governance, are also a really important part of peacebuilding? Will she give an assurance that programmes that have traditionally been bent towards those ends will be protected, and that the money will not be diverted to these new peacekeeping elements of the programme?
Baroness Northover
That is where the focus is. That is ODA. In providing support in areas such as Libya, Somalia, South Sudan, Pakistan, de-mining in Nepal and humanitarian aid, DfID is following these principles and this Government will continue to follow them because of the importance that the right reverend Prelate rightly ascribes to them.
Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That, in accordance with Private Business Standing Order 69 (Appointment of Examiners of Private Bills), Ms Christine Salmon Percival and Mr Peter Milledge be appointed Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Mrs Katherine Lawrence and Mr Allan Roberts.
Procedure Committee: Fourth Report
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the 4th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 117) be agreed to.
Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [HL]
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Antarctic Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:02 - Division on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 201 - Amendment 18 disagreed.
18:38 - Division on Amendment 22 - Ayes: 147 / Noes: 184 - Amendment 22 disagreed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is very courteously giving noble Lords the opportunity to leave the Chamber, but it might be helpful if they did so quietly and as speedily as possible so that we can get on to Amendment 1.
Clause 1 : Option to make planning application directly to Secretary of State
Amendment 1
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 3 and 14, which we have in this group. I can be brief on Amendment 3, because, to all intents and purposes, it seems to cover the same ground as government Amendment 4. Essentially, they require it to be stated in the Bill that types of application which can be directed to the Secretary of State rather than the local planning authority must be for a major development of a kind prescribed in regulations. We are content to accept the Government’s formulation.
Amendments 1 and 14 relate to the designation of a local planning authority. They require that the criteria to be applied in designating and revoking designation of a local planning authority be the subject of a parliamentary process and in particular that both Houses of Parliament be asked to approve the regulations via the affirmative procedure. We debated this in Committee and noted that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had raised concerns over the lack of a parliamentary process. It is clear that the Government have responded, at least to an extent.
Designation is no trivial matter. It represents a considerable shift in process because it removes a democratically elected council’s role of having the first engagement with the planning process. We know that the Government consulted on the thresholds for poor performance and a failing authority; that is, 30% or fewer major applications determined within the statutory period or more than 20% of major decisions overturned on appeal. The consultation has now ended, although we do not yet have sight of the full government response. We have just—hot off the press, I think—received a summary of the consultation responses. These show that less than half of respondents supported the speed and quality approach; that less than half of respondents agreed with assessing major developments within statutory time limits over two years; that only about a quarter expressed support for quality being assessed as the proportion of major decisions being overturned on appeal; and that less than half agreed with the 30%/20% formulation. It seems that there is a long way to go for there to be good levels of buy-in to this approach. What are the Government going to do given this response to the consultation? It is slightly worrying that they are on record as saying that they will not deliver their response until after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
It should be stressed that the amendment seeks a process for the criteria not only for designation but for revocation. The latter was a cause of a lot of concern given that the local planning authority may not handle major applications, other than fairly administrative tasks, once designation has taken place.
We remain concerned about the proposed mechanical process of designation, although it is accepted that agreements, formal and informal, would be taken into account in any process. We were comforted also by the Minister’s words in Committee, where she said that,
“I hope I made it clear that if a local authority is going to be designated, it will be able to put forward the sort of points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have suggested as a reason for why their applications have been slower than others”.—[Official Report, 22/1/13; col. 1047.]
That is, there will be an opportunity to make representations. How does the Minister consider this approach might be built into the designation process?
I shall speak later to the government amendments once the Minister has introduced them and to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Whitaker. In the mean time, I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing these amendments. I will move the government amendments, as he asked. I very much welcome the scrutiny that noble Lords have given this clause. We have looked very carefully at the issues raised, and I am very glad to be able to bring forward the amendments in this group that respond to them.
In Committee, concern was expressed about the need for greater reassurance and stronger safeguards in relation to the way that this clause could be used. This was also reflected in the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Select Committee on the Constitution. The amendments we propose are designed to provide that reassurance by making very clear in the Bill the circumstances in which this clause may be used and by providing Parliament with an opportunity to consider the criteria by which planning authorities’ performance would be assessed.
Amendment 4 will ensure that applications for major development only can be submitted directly to the Secretary of State. The point was made quite forcefully in Committee that there should be a determination as to which applications were caught by these provisions. A number of noble Lords argued for this, and what we are doing now gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe what “major development” means for this purpose. We intend to use the existing definition found in secondary legislation; for example, 10 houses or more or an equivalent amount of commercial space. This approach reflects the change that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, proposed in Amendment 3, and I am grateful to him for saying that he thinks what we have done is sufficient for him perhaps not to take his amendment any further.
Amendment 7 makes two important changes. First, it puts beyond any doubt that an authority could be designated under the clause only if it is not performing adequately in handling planning applications. Again, in doing this we are responding positively to the arguments put forward in Committee. Secondly, it requires that the criteria for designating authorities—and, indeed, for lifting any designation—must be laid before both Houses for a period of 40 sitting days before they come into effect only if there has been no vote in either House to the effect that the document should not be approved. We will come to what we expect those criteria to be when we debate the next group.
I believe these changes provide a powerful safeguard against any perceived future misuse of the powers that Clause 1 confers on the Secretary of State. I do not think there is any need to go further and require an affirmative procedure for the criteria, as Amendments 1 and 14 would require, as that would take us well beyond the sort of safeguards that underpin other performance regimes. It is also worth noting that where similar powers were taken by the previous Government in the Local Government Act 1999, the Education Act 1996 and the National Health Service Act 2006 there is no parliamentary scrutiny on the criteria that the relevant Secretaries of State use before exercising their powers. To go further than we propose would mean an unnecessarily protracted process for any changes that do not need to be made.
Amendments 8, 11 and 12 make some minor consequential changes to the clause. A further consequence is Amendment 53, relating to Clause 31, which provides for early commencement of proposed new Section 62B. This is for one reason only, which is to allow Parliament sufficient time to consider the criteria we propose to use while still allowing any initial designations to be made in October this year, as we set out in our consultation paper. This change has no impact on when the remainder of Clause 1 would come into effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has not spoken to Amendment 10. I am not sure whether I shall move my amendments and give her an opportunity to do that. We have not heard from her. I think this is a bit unusual but since she seems to have missed the cut, I will move my amendments and leave the noble Baroness to speak to hers.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord McKenzie’s inference from the responses to the consultation and welcome the direction of travel of the Minister’s amendment, but I shall argue for more specificity in the Bill. I speak to Amendment 10 in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who regrets that he cannot be here today. What I shall say has been drawn up with him, and I am grateful for his expert support and that of the Town and Country Planning Association. Perhaps I should also declare that I am an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Our amendment is tabled because of a gap in the concept of designation. Of all the evidence of poor performance by a planning authority, the one that has a particularly adverse effect on quality of life, as well as the local economy, is bad design, coupled with lack of sustainability, but that is not specified in the Bill. That power is open to wide discretion, whereas, at the other extreme, the consultation’s proposals for failing authorities are pretty mechanistic and relate to speed and appeal decisions—not tests of quality but, rather, tick-box exercises to check compliance. The impact of designation on local democracy is very powerful, and speed and compliance with the NPPF with regard to appeal decisions should not, I submit, be enough to prompt a designation decision. That should be taken in the round and take full account of the quality of outcomes. That is particularly important because the broad principles in the NPPF are themselves open to quite a degree of interpretation.
The two extremes of a vague, wide power in the Bill and narrow, mechanistic tests for failure omit the real point of good planning—to approve development that is durable and practical, acceptable to residents and capable of improving their total environment as well as, in the long term, saving public money. That cannot be done without an informed approach to design; but design capacity is still very patchy among planning authorities, and many succumb to the will or blandishments of developers who may well not have the long-term interest of the local community at heart.
Therefore, the amendment makes it necessary for the Secretary of State to consider what the authority has done by way of contributing to sustainable development and good design, which complements existing duties in planning legislation rather than enabling them to be overridden. He has also to consider, in addition, what the local views are so that, for instance, if a neighbourhood has developed design criteria but cannot get the planning authority either to accept them or to draw up its own, it is not short changed by the process. Finally, he must consider what any wider public interest might be. That latter obligation enables discretion to be used when necessary, so that it is not a matter of a fixed threshold being triggered. Finally, the Secretary of State must publish his or her reasons for designating according to the criteria in the amendment, which element of transparency I hope that the noble Baroness will also support.
In conclusion, the amendment would go a long way to protect residents from the kind of system failure in design and sustainability which poor planning authorities all too often let themselves in for. In that way, growth and infrastructure really could work properly. I commend the amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 10 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. As this is my first intervention on Report, I note my relevant interests as president of the Local Government Association, chair of Hanover Housing Association and, in the context of the amendment, which concerns good design, vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
In support of the intention behind this amendment, I would like to quote from an excellent speech delivered by the Minister for Planning, Nick Boles, to the Town and Country Planning Association shortly before Christmas. He said:
“People look at the new housing estates that have been bolted on to their towns and villages in recent decades and observe that few of them are beautiful. Indeed, not to put too fine a point on it, many of them are pig ugly”.
He went on:
“Since new housing estates are all too often soulless and formulaic ... existing residents oppose any proposal to build new houses on green field sites, even when the land is of low environment quality”.
He continued:
“In a nutshell, because we don't build beautifully, people don't let us build much. And because we don't built much we can't afford to build beautifully”.
He later said:
“It is now for the planners, architects and developers, large and small, to seize the opportunity we have created and start designing beautiful places, which local people will welcome”.
Poor design not only affects the lives of the people who occupy the new buildings, it also affects those who live in the same neighbourhood. Because so much new development has been, as Nick Boles says, “pig ugly”, the great British public regularly turn out to stymie and oppose the creation of the new homes that are so essential to ending acute housing shortages.
This amendment would strengthen the emphasis on good design, which should always be a hallmark of projects obtaining planning consent. It would, thereby, make it easier to gain the consent of local communities to the building of the new homes this country needs so badly. I strongly commend it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I intervene very briefly to say that I very much welcome the amendments that my noble friend Lady Hanham has tabled to this clause. I have recognised from the beginning that it has been very controversial, not least among local authorities. I, too, declare an interest here as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have made it very clear to the association that I support the main thrust of Clause 1, but equally I recognise its desire to see the criteria dealt with more formally in the legislation. The indications that we have had from the Government in this context have been helpful, as has the Government’s amendment that it will be subject to regulations under the negative procedure, as my noble friend has indicated. These amendments are very welcome and take some of the sting, which local authorities have felt, out of the clause.
Local authorities need not be so worried about the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, whose handling of this legislation I have always admired; he is extremely thorough. He quoted some of the figures from the summary of the consultation response, which I downloaded on my computer yesterday and read. The important thing to recognise is that, in the light of what I have just said about the general attitude of most local authorities towards this clause, it is hardly surprising that the response rate was not much more than 40 to 45%. One has to recognise that of the 227 replies received, 67% were from councils. A further 12% were from local government, professional or environmental organisations, and around 12% were from development interests or business groups. It was a pretty unbalanced response, but that is the nature of consultation; it is the people who feel strongly about such matters who respond. I am sure that those in the development industry look at the clause and say this is a step in the right direction. It is not surprising, given the figures quoted by the noble Lord, that there should have been what is, in a sense, a very heavily weighted response on the part of the local authority world. This does not in any way detract from the support I give to my noble friend for the amendments that she has tabled to this clause. I think that, with these amendments, the clause is a good deal more acceptable and I welcome it.
Lord True
My Lords, I hesitate to take exception to any remark made by my noble friend, who I have admired and worked with for so many years, but local authorities are charged with the responsibility of administering the planning system and have knowledge of so doing. It is hardly surprising—in my view, they would be failing in their professional duty—if they did not respond to a consultation which affected the rights of planning authorities. In declaring my interest as leader of a local authority, I confess that my own authority was probably one among the number that raised a few question marks about the clause as originally drafted, so I hope that the Minister will not dismiss the representations made just because they are made by local authorities.
I strongly agree with my noble friend that the changes she has introduced are positive. I was one of those who expressed concerns at an earlier stage of the Bill about the breadth of Clause 1, as it was then drafted. My noble friend, in her typical way, has listened to those concerns, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, very generously acknowledged. We have come a very long way and I hope that we will be able to do that on later aspects of the Bill. Therefore, I, too, thank my noble friend.
I have some sympathy in spirit with Amendment 10. I am perhaps breaking a habit in this regard: I, too, agree with what Mr Boles said on the matter of design. There is a question of whether that is a matter for the Bill but I agree with the analysis that planning would be so much easier if design were better. I would remark only that, as I said at an earlier stage, we must avoid the risk of any kind of moral hazard in this legislation. In terms of openness and the way in which designation is made, it is still not clear to me—it is certainly not inherent in the Bill—that where a future Secretary of State makes a designation and takes the game away from a local authority with the view of making a judgment on a major planning application, it must be the case that any representations made to the Secretary of State before he makes that designation become matters of public knowledge, in the same way as representations in terms of planning are placed on a website.
I have not tabled anything in this respect, but I hope that in response my noble friend will make it clear that there will be absolute transparency in that respect. There can therefore never be any suspicion that any powerful interest has got at any Government behind the scenes, leading to the designation of a local authority which may have been a little bit awkward to somebody who wanted to get a major planning application through. That is not an obstacle to what my noble friend has put before us, which I welcome, but perhaps she might be able to respond—if not now, in correspondence—on that specific point of transparency.
Lord Tope
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken at this stage I, too, must again declare my interest as a member of a local planning authority in London. Briefly, I echo the sentiments of both my noble friends who have just spoken; even though they started by disagreeing with each other, in effect they are saying the same thing. I recall recognising at Second Reading that the Minister is well known for listening, and saying that on this occasion I hoped that she would not only listen, characteristically, but hear and be able to act accordingly. I am grateful that she has indeed listened and heard and that we have these welcome amendments. I rather gather that the government amendments are being welcomed on all sides of the House. While not making this clause perfection, they have certainly improved it considerably.
In saying that, I have had the chance only to have a very quick look at the consultation results, which we received fairly late yesterday. I am a little surprised that there is so much support for the proposals in Clause 1, including from local authorities. I cannot help wondering whether, if we were to consult now—I am not suggesting that we should—on Clause 1 as it is likely to read after today, we might see even better results. With the reassurances that have been, and I think still will be, given on it, Clause 1 has been made far less onerous than when we first looked at it. I welcome the movement from the Government and their amendments before us today. They do not go as far as some of us would wish but they go considerably further than we might have hoped at an earlier stage and we on these Benches certainly welcome them.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are running slightly out of order so, with the leave of the House, I will speak now and the noble Lord can respond after me.
I am glad that most noble Lords have had an opportunity to see the consultation. I made it clear in Committee that I would try to ensure that the consultation responses, at least, were available to the House, and that is what we have done. It would be fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has done, that with any consultation parts are agreed and parts disagreed. If I did not misunderstand my noble friend Lord True, he suggested that we might dismiss anything that had come in from a local authority. I can assure him categorically that that is not the situation.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise for missing the fact that this was an aside. I will not take it any further, other than to underline the point that we listen very carefully to what local authorities say about legislation and we always will.
I am also grateful for the general support we have had. I understand that there are still concerns about this designation but we are trying to keep it as simple as we possibly can. In that regard, I will briefly address the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. We will be discussing the criteria in Amendment 10. They may want to intervene again in the next group but I think and hope I can deal with it. It is important to remember the whole purpose of this clause, which is to encourage good and timely decisions from local authorities and to give applicants for major development the choice of a much better service. There is no question here that, where the authority is designated, an applicant cannot still go to them. They are given the choice of being able to go to a local authority or being able to go immediately to the planning inspector. At the moment, they can do that after 13 weeks if an application has not been dealt with, but now they can go right from the outset.
In the context of design, sustainability is hugely important. However, it is not relevant to what we are trying to do here, which is to get the number of appeals against a particular local authority down and the applications dealt with quickly. Local authorities have to take sustainability, design and good development into account. The noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out very clearly what my honourable friend at the other end, Nick Boles, has said. We believe very strongly in that. The national policy framework deals with that as well and makes it very clear. However, these are not tests that we ought to apply as part of assessing the designation. They are not matters that can easily be assessed on the basis of our considerations and the very limited criteria which we are employing.
Were the amendment to be accepted, there would be a very real risk of having a process that is far from transparent. We do not want that: we want it to be as open as it can be and, perhaps, open to judicial review. We wish to avoid that by employing the criteria that will ensure that the assessment process is as fair and transparent as possible. As I say, we will have a chance to consider those further in the next group.
My noble friend Lord True—I actually understood him this time and did not get it wrong—asked whether there would be clarity where the applications were sent to the Secretary of State. Again, we will deal with this later in the Bill where there are relevant amendments, but I assure him that the intention is that it should be open and transparent, with local people having the right to make representations to planning officials. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the amendments and for moving the Government’s amendments. We are happy to accept Amendment 4, with perhaps a more grudging acceptance of Amendments 7 and 19 because we think that a more robust process would be appropriate. At least now we have a parliamentary process, though, so the Government have moved on that and we should thank the Minister for it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that Clause 1 is far from perfect; we would prefer it not be in the Bill and we will debate that later, but these amendments have edged it forward in a more acceptable direction.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that it is entirely appropriate that local authorities should be engaged in this consultation; in a sense, it is their powers that are potentially restricted by this. Something is still unclear to me regarding representations. Again, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord True, that we do not want representations by the back door from people to the Secretary of State, but the opportunity for local authorities to make representations to the Secretary of State before designation takes place is still a grey area, at least to us. In Committee, the noble Baroness seemed to open the door for some iterative approach which is encompassed in performance agreements, formal or informal. I hope that we can get greater clarity on that during our deliberations today.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, basically said in respect of the responses from local authorities, “Well, of course they would say that”, but the value of the consultation is not only the metrics—even though it was me who quoted them—but some of the issues that are raised, and they are very relevant to some of the debates that we are going to have.
We support the approach of my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment, spoken to and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It reminds us that one way to judge quality might be the level of unsuccessful appeals, but that does not really go to the heart of whether a planning authority’s decisions and engagement are focused on the quality of design and the achievement of sustainable development.
It is interesting to look at the consultation responses to Question 5,
“Do you agree that quality should be assessed on the proportion of major decisions that are overturned at appeal … ?”.
Is that the right metric for judging quality? Only 27% supported that while nearly half, 48%, were either opposed to it or had a qualified opposition to it. It is this lack of a qualitative assessment and reliance on the mechanistic approach to designation that is likely to drive down standards. Clearly, ignoring any view from parish or town councils, neighbourhood and business forums, or indeed any relevant representations, may make for clarity of criteria but, I suggest, does not assure us of the right sort of outcomes that we want from the planning process. Having said all that, though, and accepting the Government’s amendments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(aa) the local planning authority has been given 12 months prior notice by the Secretary of State ahead of their designation for the purposes of this section.”
Lord Tope
Amendment 2 will have the effect of giving a 12-month period between a local planning authority being identified as performing poorly and the time when it may become designated. In Committee I suggested 18 months, my noble friend Lord Greaves suggested 12 months and we did not need to argue over that. I have settled on 12 months because part of the Government’s argument against the amendment at that time was that 18 months was too long.
There is a slightly different approach towards Clause 1 and designation. The Government have said that they want Clause 1 as a deterrent to local authorities. I prefer to see Clause 1 as an incentive. There is an important difference in thinking: a deterrent is something negative which implies punishment at the end if you do not comply, whereas I see incentive as encouragement, something positive, to seek to improve. That is what the Government seek to achieve as well. They are not out to punish local planning authorities—that has become very clear during the course of the many debates on this clause. They are seeking improvement too.
I suggest that there should be a 12-month period from the time when a local planning authority becomes aware that its performance is poor enough to warrant possible designation. It should then have the time to take the necessary actions itself, if it can, to bring about the necessary improvements, to join with others in a peer-led improvement, on which the Local Government Association—of which I am not a vice-president—has a very good track record and which I know the Government have appreciated on many occasions. It also gives time for the Government and others to assess the direction of travel of that local planning authority. If it is improving at a significant rate, then to designate it at the end of that period would seem to be an unnecessary punishment. We should, rather, stimulate with greater encouragement.
This amendment is brought forward in good faith in the hopes of further helping the Government to achieve their objectives. The Planning Minister, Mr Boles, has said that he hopes that neither he nor any future Government will ever have need to use the provisions in Clause 1 because local planning authorities will have improved their performance and it will be unnecessary. The amendment allows a sufficient and reasonable time period to enable local authorities to bring that about themselves without suffering the punishment of designation.
I hope that when the Minister replies she will spell out how the Government see this as an incentive to improve, not a punishment to be inflicted for poor performance. When we look at the process in more detail we can see how that is being achieved. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in Committee on a similar amendment proposing a period of 18 months. The intention is to give early warning to local authorities, so that they have an opportunity to improve with the help of other local authorities, the LGA, and possibly even the Government.
The thrust of the amendment is entirely reasonable. We suspect that the Government’s response will be that authorities will know in good time. Designation will be based on two years’ data and authorities will know the results of the first of these years. If they are failing the criteria for year 1, the danger signals will be there for the end of year 2. Councils will be able to seek to improve. This does not address the position at the start of the scheme where, before the ink is dry on the legislation, the die will effectively be cast.
At a recent meeting, which was kindly organised with the Planning Minister, it was hinted that there might be some easement in the early period. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether there are any such developments. In any event, on an ongoing basis, knowing in year 2 that year 1 criteria have not been met may not give the local planning authority sufficient time to improve. Improvement may in part depend on the nature of any new applications. Tardy dealing with the major development submitted in year 1 may affect the data for year 2. For a small local planning authority, staff sickness and the timescales to recruit new staff are factors which anyway could mean that a local authority has insufficient time to turn things around by the end of year 2.
If the objective is to encourage sustainable improvement in local planning authorities, the rigid application of the criteria could be counterproductive. The noble Lord’s amendment seems to give an opportunity of improving that situation under these arrangements. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that if we do not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister today, he should consider testing the opinion of the House on this proposition.
That leads to our Amendment 15, which requires the serving of a notice of intention to designate but then, crucially, a chance for a local planning authority to make representations as to why designation would be inappropriate—not for an extensive period but for just four weeks in this case. We know that the Government will argue for the importance of transparency and certainty in the process but they should also recognise that a range of factors could affect the timeliness of dealing with applications—difficult development, statutory consultees, extended and iterative community consultation, to name but a few. It might be argued that anyone served with a prospective designation notice is bound to make representations but of course not all will be justified.
In any event, at a recent meeting, we heard from the Planning Minister that although the number of likely local planning authorities to be designated has crept up—I think that he suggested 20—that surely is not too large a group for there to be the opportunity to make representations. We should think of the damage to and the demotivation of a planning team which gets designated through no genuine reasons that it could influence.
Perhaps I may again take the noble Baroness back to our deliberations in Committee when she said:
“There are usually reasons why planning applications are delayed, and one may be that an application will take longer than the normal consultation period. Before an authority is designated, it will be allowed to put that view forward and say that it has not been able to deal with certain applications because it has agreed that the process will take longer, or there may be some other reason. A portcullis will not just come down; discussions and explanations will be possible”.—[Official Report, 22/1/13; col. 1032.]
That seems to be pretty clear and suggests that there should be scope for precisely what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and our Amendment 15 seek. Unfortunately, from all that we have heard so far, it seems as though the portcullis will just come down and that there will be no stay of execution on this.
Baroness Hanham
I thank both noble Lords for these amendments, which, as I have said, open up the discussions on the criteria and the means of designation. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said that with designation we should be incentivising and not punishing. From the outset, I want to make it clear that that is precisely what we are trying to do. While we designate because of a performance, we are trying to ensure that that performance improves. If this is an incentive to do that, that is precisely what we are trying to do.
How the designation process will work is very important. As a matter of course, we are consulting on it. I think that it would be helpful if I begin by giving noble Lords an indication of what people have said and how we intend to respond. The consultation closed on 17 January and, as noble Lords have said, there were 227 responses, many of them from planning authorities. There were inevitably some differences of view and, having looked carefully at the responses, we are in a position to confirm how we plan to move forward on some of the key elements of the proposals. We will of course publish a full response to the consultation in due course, once the primary powers to be implemented have been finalised.
In the light of the consultation we have concluded that the speed and quality of decisions on planning applications are the most appropriate basis for assessing the performance of local planning authorities for the purpose of implementing this clause. The basis refers to the specific thresholds where, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly said, 20% were lost on appeal and 30% assessed on speed or lack of it—applying, in other words, to authorities that have had 20% or more of their major decisions overturned at appeal, or that have decided 30% or fewer of their major applications within the statutory period.
It bears repeating that these are very low thresholds. The intention behind them is to create a safeguard that encourages—or incentivises—good performance rather than to see a lot of designations. We remain of the view that designations should be a last resort and that these thresholds are in line with that objective. We will keep them under review—that is our starting point and firm intention. Through the amendments that we have made to Clause 1, Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the criteria before they are finalised.
There was considerable support for our proposal to allow extensions of time agreed between the local authority and the developer to be dealt with separately from the performance figures that we currently collect. This was one of the points addressed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie; where over time there are difficulties, as long as there is agreement with the developer for an extension of that time for whatever reason, that will not become part of the decision-making relating to the designation. These performance figures are part of promoting a simpler, more proportionate approach to planning performance agreements. We will reflect this as quickly as possible in the data that we collect. We also intend to proceed with our suggestion that any authorities that fall below the performance thresholds are considered for designation and dedesignation on an annual basis.
In line with this we have been giving particular thought to how we can put in place a cycle of support for authorities that are at risk of designation and have actually been designated. This is important for two reasons. First, by providing early support we very much hope that we can help any authorities that may be struggling to improve sufficiently and so avoid designation. Secondly, for authorities that have been designated we will want to make sure that they can get out of it as quickly as they can and that, if possible, designation can be lifted at the end of a first year.
In the light of the consultation responses, our position is that decisions about dedesignation should be guided primarily by an assessment of what the authority has done to address the reasons for underperformance, and its capacity and capability to deal effectively with major applications. This will mean reviewing at the time of designation what the authority needs to do to reach a satisfactory level of performance and to ensure that it can access whatever help may be required. To provide that support we have been having helpful discussions with the Local Government Association about the way that it can best be provided to those local authorities. We agree with the LGA that this is appropriately done by support from the sector, and that it has a vital role to play in driving improvement in planning services and addressing poor performances where they exist. Giving local government the responsibility to manage its performance is a principle we are committed to and have supported through our funding of the Planning Advisory Service.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify the position at the start of the process? The first round of designation will take place in October this year and as most of the data that will influence that is already in existence, there is little that a local authority can do now, given the time, even if it is extended to June, which might have been the suggested date, to have a sector-led approach to help them to improve. We are almost in March, and the legislation is not yet on the statute book. What the noble Baroness said was helpful going forward, but I do not see that it helps people and local authorities at the start of the process that much. Can she give us any further comfort on that?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have two bits of comfort, if I can voice it like that. First, I think that local authorities that are in the designated zone will be very aware that they are and the Local Government Association is well prepared now to help them. Secondly, the figures that they can see at present may make them feel at risk once they have done that, but they can then approach the Local Government Association for help to see whether they can improve their figures going up to October.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his support so far and I am grateful to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, in urging me to consider testing the opinion of the House, that we would have to listen very carefully to what the Minister had to say. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out the whole process so fully and thoroughly. We will all want to look at it a little more carefully and read it in Hansard tomorrow, but it seems to me that she has gone a long way towards meeting the intentions of my amendment.
As I believed to be the case, she has confirmed that the intention is to seek improvement and not to punish. She has confirmed that it will be a sector-led approach, that discussions have taken place with the Local Government Association and that it will fully co-operate, help, support and lead that. She has rightly said that those authorities that are likely to be at risk under the criteria, which, as she rightly says, are set at a very low threshold, already know that they are at risk. I believe that, since the Bill was published last autumn, those authorities that feel themselves to be at risk are already showing some significant signs of improvement.
I feel that the Minister has accepted the intentions of my amendment; indeed, she has accepted almost everything but the words themselves. Having achieved that much, I feel that it is right and proper at this stage to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
(2) In this section—
“major development” means development of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State;”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) Before reaching a decision on an application made to him under this section, the Secretary of State must ensure that there has been adequate consultation with the local community.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment is entirely consistent with Amendment 13, which I trust I will be able to support after it has been spoken to by its mover. Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that, when an application is made to the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill, there must, nevertheless, be adequate consultation with the local community. One of the fears arising from Clause 1 is that it facilitates the bypassing of local planning authorities and, along the way, local communities. It is a rerun of a Committee amendment because we considered that the matter was not fully resolved at that stage.
The Minister at that time asserted the intention that all current statutory requirements on local authorities would be transferred to the Planning Inspectorate, including requirements around publicity and consultation. Perhaps the noble Baroness will remind us this afternoon of the process and timing for this. Notwithstanding that, the concern lingers about the presumption that applications dealt with by PINS will largely involve engagement by means of written representations, with possibly a short hearing to allow key parties to put their views, and that this would not necessarily be typical of major applications to a local planning authority. In moving the amendment, I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point.
Lord True
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has effectively summarised in the points made. I do not pretend that the specific wording or format is necessarily correct, but none the less the broad principle enshrined in it, and in what the noble Lord has just said, is important. As this process goes forward there will inevitably be fears that a Government—not this one necessarily—may in time use this process to ensure that it is made easier to secure agreement to major developments against the wishes of the local population. It might be feared that that could be done either by having a process that is conducted through written procedures or by a rather cursory appearance from an inspector for a hearing in the local area. In this process, a great deal also goes on in the pre-planning stage. Good developers are these days very active and are often encouraged by local authorities to meet local populations to discuss and undertake consultation, perhaps in relation to what might be the specific local community benefits that come from the development. All those things are best conducted locally, in the place and community where the development will take place and which will be affected by it.
As I said, I do not intend to try to write law that is prescriptive. My noble friend gave some general reassurances earlier, but in both the pre-planning stage and the period in which a planning application is under consideration, it is absolutely essential that the Government leave no suspicion in the minds of the public about their rights, about which they feel ever stronger. Those of us who have the honour to represent people in local authorities know that the people’s wish to have their voice heard is greater, not less, as time goes by. I hope that we can hear a very strong reaffirmation from my noble friend that if not the specifics of my amendment, certainly the spirit of it will be written into whatever provision the Government might follow up with as they refine secondary legislation, codes of practice and so on, once the legislation becomes law.
The public must not believe, or have any justification to believe, that there is something herein that makes it easier for development to take place in the teeth of what local people believe to be in their interests. That is not nimbyism; there is a balance in these matters. Giving people a chance to have their day in court and to have their voice heard is extremely important in the principle of securing consent to planning developments, which all of us in this House know that this country will need in the decades ahead.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I remind the House that I have declared an interest as someone helping people through a company with sustainable development. It is on that point that I support what has been said. It is not just a question of community not feeling that it is being bypassed, although that is crucial and the gravamen of the whole discussion. We also want to support those developers who do the job properly, as against those who think that there is a short cut.
One of the encouraging things of recent years has been the increasing number of developers who have understood that proper community consultation early on makes their development not only more likely but probably better. Many of them are taking seriously the fact that input from the community can be not an incubus but a considerable advantage. Therefore, I, too, hope that my noble friend will be able to give us an assurance—which I am sure she would wish to give—that this is a mechanism to achieve things which cannot otherwise be achieved, rather than a mechanism to make easier to achieve things that should not be achieved and would otherwise be stopped. That is the distinction that we are trying to draw.
My concern in respect of developers, therefore, is that we do not want the less good to triumph over the good. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord True rightly pointed out, we do not want the public to feel that they are being railroaded about things in which they are increasingly interested. We in this House ought to remind people that this is not some evanescent view that will disappear. People will increasingly want to have control over what happens in their own area; that is why we had the Localism Bill. It is also true that, as the world outside becomes more and more complex and people feel it is more and more difficult to decide on how they will have some control over energy policy, the European Union, the work of the United Nations and all the rest of it, localism—the concept of at least having some real control over the area around you—becomes a greater demand rather than a lesser one. This is a crucial moment in this Bill, and the ability of my noble friend to reassure the House is of great importance.
Lord Tope
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shipley and I have added our names to Amendment 13, to which the noble Lord, Lord True, has spoken. I strongly echo all that he has said; indeed, I think we find ourselves so much in agreement that our respective council groups will be getting very alarmed by our togetherness. I will not repeat what he has said or what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has said, with which I also strongly agree.
I want to use this amendment and this opportunity to return to the position in Greater London, about which I spoke in Committee. At that time, I pointed out that the Mayor of London—the office, not the post-holder—is responsible for strategic planning in London; that the mayor is elected and democratically accountable both to the elected London Assembly and to the electorate of London; and that if any London planning authority was unfortunate enough to find itself designated, it would surely be far more appropriate and satisfactory for the Mayor of London to take the place of the Planning Inspectorate, with his far greater level of local London knowledge.
In reply, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said:
“We gave the reassurance that applications of potential strategic importance would be notified to the mayor very quickly once they had been received by the Planning Inspectorate, so that he will be able to act immediately should he wish to intervene”.—[Official Report, 22/1/13; col. 1101.]
He described that as a more practical approach than having the mayor, in effect, taking the place of the Planning Inspectorate in London. That sounded reasonable and reassuring in theory, but I want to use this amendment to understand better how it is intended that that would work in practice. Will it happen through regulation or through some form of gentlemen’s agreement —and who knows, one day the mayor might not be a gentleman? To what extent will the mayor be able to take responsibility for dealing with the appropriate applications in London when an authority has been designated and, if it is still PINS, what notice will PINS take of what the mayor, with that responsibility, has to say?
I think the Minister is aware that I was going to raise these points. I seek clarification for me, the mayor and the mayor’s office, who are similarly not sure whether or not to feel reassured.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hope I can be reassuring on all the aspects that have been raised. We are fully aware of the necessity to ensure that residents and local communities are involved in any planning application. In any planning application process, effective community involvement is essential. It is a priority that we have been pursuing vigorously through the various planning reforms.
In Committee, I tried to be clear that we will ensure, through secondary legislation, that there is no reduction in the rights of communities to become involved where applications are made directly to the Secretary of State. Let me go into that a little further. There will be no dilution of the legislative safeguards to enable communities to become aware of applications made to the Secretary of State, to comment on them and to have their views taken into account; nor will any less weight be given to their views on the planning issues involved.
Indeed, the existing primary legislation will require a planning inspector, when making a decision on such an application, to take all material considerations into account, just as a local planning authority would. The decision would have to be made in accordance with the development plan unless there are any material considerations that indicate otherwise. Again, that is no different from the approach that a local planning authority would have to take. The local authority will, of course, be able to put its own representations to the Planning Inspectorate with regard to the application.
It was a major element of the Localism Bill that there should be pre-planning discussions, and we expect those to take place as well. This is not a fast process from that point of view. You would expect pre-planning discussions to take place before the application was lodged, because otherwise they are not worth having. That aspect will still continue. We are trying to ensure that the important protections in town and national planning policy are taken fully into account, whether the decision is made by a planning inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State or by the local planning authority.
Through secondary legislation, we will ensure that the relevant documents for applications made directly to the Secretary of State are made available at the offices of the local planning authority as well as on the planning inspector’s website. I can also confirm that our intention is that there should be short local hearings. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether hearings and discussions would be held to consider the views of key parties where a case has raised issues that should be considered in public. I hope noble Lords will understand that we are very anxious that local communities are not excluded from this process and that it is as transparent, as it would be were the local planning authority dealing with it.
My noble friend Lord Tope raised the question of the Mayor of London. Schedule 1 allows the Mayor of London to retain his ability to call in any applications of potential strategic importance for the capital where an application is made directly to the Secretary of State. To ensure that the mayor is made aware of any such application as swiftly as possible, the Planning Inspectorate will make an immediate assessment of whether any application it receives falls into this category. If it does, it will notify the mayor’s office without delay and he can then decide whether he needs or wants to call in the application for his own decision. I hope that addresses the point made by my noble friend.
The Town and Country Planning Act makes specific provision for parish councils to be notified of proposals in their area. It was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, neither of whom are in their places today. I reassure them that parish councils will have to be notified of proposals in their area where they have notified the planning authority that they wish to be kept informed. It is voluntary as far as they are concerned.
I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 17 responds to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which I have just discussed, and will make it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to inform parish councils of any applications that affect them, provided that they have asked to be notified of the applications, which seems reasonably fair. Amendment 19 makes a minor consequential change to Schedule 1.
In the light of what I have said, while I understand and sympathise with the intention behind the amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Tope, Lord Shipley and Lord McKenzie, and spoken to very supportively by my noble friend Lord Deben, I do not think that these additional changes are necessary to ensure that effective community involvement is seriously taken into account where applications are made to the Secretary of State. As I have said, we will ensure that secondary legislation requires the same degree of consultation with communities as primary legislation, which sets out the requirements that apply when applications are made to the local planning authority. We will of course ensure that the House has an opportunity to consider the secondary legislation that deals with these matters when the time for that is ripe.
With those assurances, I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and for moving her own amendments. Clearly we support the government amendments and their provisions for the notification of parish councils. I have already indicated my support for the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tope. I believe that the Minister has satisfied us about the legislative framework under which the Planning Inspectorate will be required to consult to make residents aware and to ensure that their views are taken into account, whether by primary legislation or by secondary legislation that is to come.
However, nervousness remains over whether the Planning Inspectorate’s approach will involve engaging with the intensity with which a local authority would, and whether its connection with the local community is as intense and engaged as that of a local planning authority. I suppose there is no way of getting greater assurance on this point until we see what happens in practice. The noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord True, made a point about the era that we are in. Local people now have a much greater focus, and the entitlement to engage in these things is important. However, I do not think that we can second-guess what might happen; we will have to see in practice what the level of engagement is.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has been satisfied on the mayor’s position. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“62B Designation for the purposes of section 62A
(1) An authority may be designated for the purposes of section 62A only if—
(a) the criteria that are to be applied in deciding whether to designate the authority are set out in a document to which subsection (2) applies,(b) by reference to those criteria, the Secretary of State considers that there are respects in which the authority are not adequately performing their function of determining applications under this Part, and(c) the criteria that are to be applied in deciding whether to revoke a designation are set out in a document to which subsection (2) applies. (2) This subsection applies to a document if—
(a) the document has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State,(b) the 40-day period for the document has ended without either House of Parliament having during that period resolved not to approve the document, and(c) the document has been published (whether before, during or after the 40-day period for it) by the Secretary of State in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit.(3) In this section “the 40-day period” for a document is the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the document is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the two days on which it is laid).
(4) In calculating the 40-day period for a document, no account is to be taken of any period during which—
(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than four days.”
“(e) the National Parks Authorities; and(f) the Broads Authority.”
Lord Judd
My Lords, perhaps it is appropriate at this stage in our proceedings that I remind the House that I am a resident of a national park, a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks and a patron of the Friends of the Lake District.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Adonis very powerfully put on the record how well national parks had done in planning matters. Rereading what was said at that stage of our deliberations, it does not seem to me that the Government tried to refute the case that he put forward so convincingly. I am not altogether clear about what the rationale is for the specific exemptions listed in the Bill. Why these alone in the Bill? What is really the case for them? I hope that, in dealing with what I am about to say, the Minister may have an opportunity to leave the House wiser on this point.
If there are to be exemptions, I believe most strongly that the case of the national parks is outstanding. Why? Repeatedly since the parks were originally created in the post-war era, successive Governments of different persuasions have put on the record their determination that these parks are very special parts of the United Kingdom. To those who would say that this is an emotional argument and not a practical one, I would say—I made this point in Committee—that that is utter nonsense, because a healthy, effective nation needs space to regenerate physically and mentally and the parks make a direct contribution therefore to the well-being and operational efficiency of the nation.
We all want economic development—it would be hypocritical to pretend otherwise; I certainly want it—but these very special areas must be protected in the context of our commitment to still better economic performance, because they contribute to the well-being of society and help to underpin the whole nature of the society that we are trying to achieve our by our economic performance. Economic performance cannot become an end in itself; economic performance is so that we can have a decent United Kingdom, and these special areas are absolutely central to that.
It is important to recognise that we in both Houses of Parliament have had a very important role as guarantors of this reality. Since the national parks and the Broads were established, it has been recognised not only by government but by Parliament repeatedly that they are the most important areas for natural beauty and for the opportunities they provide for public understanding of their special qualities. The Government’s national parks circular of 2010 explains why it is important for national park authorities to retain a planning function in order to deliver these statutory functions. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework restates that they are to be afforded the highest levels of protection and that major developments within or affecting a national park therefore need to be given very careful consideration.
Of course, a national park authority is highly likely to receive far fewer major applications for development than other planning authorities. A consequence of this is that the percentages for major applications determined within 26 weeks, and the percentage success rates on appeals—the criteria which are proposed by the Government for determining poorly performing authorities—can shift quite markedly from one year to another. The Government’s Planning Guarantee Monitoring Report, published in September last year, highlights that six national park authorities received three or fewer major applications in 2011-12 and that, of those, two received only one application. This surely demonstrates that the statistical problem of relying on percentages as far as they relate to national parks is a dangerous game. I recognise that the Government have issued a consultation paper that deliberates on the criteria they will use to determine poorly performing authorities. Although the period over which this is to be assessed seeks to address large variations from year to year, it is important to understand that this potentially raises very serious considerations for the parks.
Before I conclude I shall go over the basic statistical realities again. Leaving to one side the South Downs National Park, which was designated during the year in question, in the year ending 2012, the eight national park authorities and the Broads Authority received 5,000 planning applications. They granted approval for 89% of applications, which is higher than the English average of 87%. They received 53 applications for major development, of which 91% were granted approval. For major development, national park authorities compare favourably with other local planning authorities for speed of determination. They approved 60% of applications within 13 weeks, compared with the English average of 57%. It is absolutely clear to me—and I would have thought to everybody—that the national park authorities have a good track record in planning performance and a number are, for example, part of the Government’s front runner programme for promoting neighbourhood planning. If there are to be exemptions, I urge the Minister to look seriously at whether, even at the final stages of consideration of the Bill, she could include the national park authorities alongside the other designated authorities, although, as has been said, it would helpful if we could have a bit more information on the overall rationale for the authorities mentioned in the Bill.
This is an important issue. It is important to keep the factual side under consideration all the time. However, I am not ashamed to say that it would be very easy to introduce a new culture in which the parks have to justify their existence rather than anyone who wants to undermine their special character having to justify why they are doing that. When we introduce legislation of this kind, it is crucial to remember that we are dealing not only with the Ministers of the day. I am convinced that the Ministers of the day are quite civilised on these issues. They have a very enlightened approach. They want to help, I think, in many ways. That is encouraging, but they might not always be there. Another Minister coming along could very easily see this as the thin end of the wedge and that the door was being pushed open, opening up all sorts of new opportunities which could very easily lead to the complete destruction of the special nature of the parks. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I hope very much that my noble friend will resist this proposition. It seems to me to be really unacceptable. If it is necessary to have a fallback power for circumstances in which it is necessary to take to the centre decisions that would otherwise be done locally, I find it very difficult to understand why the national parks should be excluded.
There are two reasons for that. First, it says something about everybody else. It says that those people are perfectly safe, but the other people have to be subject to this rule. Speaking on behalf of everybody else, I do not think that that is a very good argument. Secondly, I was Secretary of State responsible for these matters, and I can think of one national park which ought to have been under this rule for quite some time, because its planning attitudes at the time were utterly indefensible. It is no good saying that they are always perfect. If what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, says, is true—I am sure that it is—and the national parks have a remarkable record over recent years because of the fantastic speed with which they deal with plans, nobody will do that to them. If the record is as good as that, they will be the last people to be subject to this.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I find it difficult to believe in the infallibility of the national parks. Indeed, I have good reason to believe that we have made a huge mistake in making the South Downs a national park. I have opposed that all my life; I still think that it has been a disaster; it is not what should have been done and it has alienated local authorities in areas where it would be much better for them to have worked as they had worked before. I think that the same is true of the New Forest. That was an historic, political decision to do with the 1930s rather than anything to do with the 2000s, but there we are: we have done it. It has not been as damaging as it might have been, but it was not sensible.
National parks do a wonderful job. They are a fantastically important part of our structure. I think I have a long enough record of defending the countryside and working for country people and the nature of the British rural society not to be maligned by the suggestion that in some way I have a wicked desire to concrete over the countryside. Indeed, I have been pretty critical of the Government’s proposals on the basis that I do not think that it is necessary to build on greenfield sites. I happen to think that we can build all the housing we need on brownfield sites. It is an easy way out for developers to build on greenfield sites. They must be forced to build on brownfield sites because otherwise all they will do is build on greenfield sites and then wait until they have more greenfield sites. That was my experience from four years as Secretary of State. I hope that no one will criticise me for that.
If we are to have the clause—I have shown myself to be not altogether happy about the need for it—it must cover national parks and the Broads Authority like everybody else. It is hemmed around with all the Minister’s careful comments—she has been very clear that it would not be used except in certain extreme and specific circumstances. She has laid down some new mechanisms by which we can receive greater comfort about it. I still wonder in my heart whether it is utterly necessary, but, having done all that, it would be preposterous to leave the national parks out. It would be extremely rude to some other excellent local authorities, which will never be affected by the regulations because they, too, do the job as well as a national park.
I hope that my noble friend will resist this elegant, polite, romantic proposal, which the House should not support.
Lord Liddle
I did not intend to intervene in this debate. I normally find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on most issues and I greatly respect his record as a supporter of what one might call green policy. However, on this occasion, I speak declaring an interest as a Friend of the Lake District and believing that special circumstances relate to national parks which make them different from other local authorities. I saw this first-hand in my capacity as chairman of Cumbria Vision, the sub-regional body of the North West Development Agency, which was responsible for promoting economic development in Cumbria.
There are two fundamental differences. First, the people who work on national parks go into it with a very strong personal commitment to planning. I found the quality of staff working for the national park authority to be extremely high. That was not true of planning in all the other district councils in the county of Cumbria. I will not name names, but there were some problems there on the planning side. There were not, however, problems with economic development with the national park, which had a very constructive role in sustainable economic development.
The second difference, which is a fundamental difference from a local authority and the question of a Secretary of State’s potential call-in powers, is that with a national park the Secretary of State nominates quite a high proportion of the members of the authority. Therefore, if the Secretary of State believes that the national park is not getting the balance between development and the environment right, he or she can nominate members. That is my simple point. I shall give way.
Lord Deben
I thank the noble Lord for taking the opportunity to find a disagreement between us because we are both singularly embarrassed by the similarity of our views on a whole range of issues, from Europe to planning. However, if what he says is true, would it not be very surprising to get rid of people whose normal attitudes were extremely good but, because of something specific, things had gone wrong? Surely it would be much more sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to deal with this with a precise measure, rather than a sacking. As I understand it, these people are under a contract for a period of time and the Secretary of State would have to wait some time to remove them if they were so wrong. However, I understand from his noble friend that they very rarely get it wrong.
Lord Liddle
In my experience, they very rarely get it wrong. My point was simply that if the Secretary of State felt that the overall balance of the way a national park was operating was not right, there is a remedy available to him or her, which is not the case for a local authority. Anyway, I would urge a special provision for national parks because, on the whole, they are a very precious element of our polity, introduced by the post-war Labour Government, and I do not think we want to tamper with them and their independence.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report and, under the convention in the Companion, no Member may speak more than once to any amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 9 in support of my noble friend Lord Judd, who so effectively and passionately introduced it. He argues for the inclusion of the national parks authorities and the Broads Authority in those organisations that cannot be designated.
A major concern with this Bill is that it will drive down standards—that, because of the focus on timing in the criteria that are to be adopted, planning authorities will be pushed into making less considered decisions, eschewing quality for speed. That is something that runs through our concerns about this clause. As the CPRE states, exempting those particular planning authorities would be a clear recognition that landscape considerations are paramount and that they need not be distorted by the extra pressures that are coming through, as a result of this clause, on the speed of decision-making and, of course, to avoid contesting more difficult appeals.
My noble friend Lord Judd was fantastically supported by my noble friend Lord Liddle, with his direct experience of national parks. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the fact that my noble friend’s proposal is romantic should not preclude it from being supported. It can be effective and practical, as my noble friend argued, as well as having romanticism. I would have thought that that is what we want from our national parks.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interesting interventions on this interesting amendment, which we discussed in Committee. I am not going to endear myself to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, by saying that my answer now is the same as it was then. My noble friend Lord Deben said that he can see no reason for excluding national parks from designation just because they are national parks; nor can we. That also applies to the Broads Authority. The reason for keeping them included is that they are planning authorities. If they perform wonderfully and at a standard that I think the noble Lord said they would, this registration will not matter to them at all. It would completely leave them out to carry on doing what they are doing so beautifully. There might be authorities which fall into this category only if, as my noble friend Lord Deben suggested, they do not perform to the designated standard. They would then become involved.
It is important that national parks are served by an effective planning service. That applies just as much to them as to any other area. They are asked from time to time to put in major developments—we call them major if they are of 10 houses or more—and it is absolutely essential that there is within those areas a planning authority that understands what it is doing and makes those decisions carefully. There are some national parks that deal with a relatively small number of major applications, but some do not. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, cited figures, some of which would, I think, fall below the major applications category. I understand that the Lake District made decisions on 31 major applications in the past two financial years, while the New Forest dealt with 23 and the Broads Authority with 18. For those authorities, those are not inconsiderable numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked why national parks and the Broads Authority should not be included among others which had not been designated, such as the Mayor of London and the development corporations. However, these are by and large not normal planning authorities. Certainly, the development corporations get involved to deal with only very big or complex proposals and do not deal on a day-to-day basis with some of the smaller ones.
It is true that other national parks deal with fewer major applications, but the two-year assessment period that we have proposed is designed to even out some of the fluctuations. It is also important to remember that these authorities will be able to enter into planning performance agreements or agree an extension of time where there are issues that will take additional time to resolve, which may be germane only to their particular type of application. There should be no worries that if a national park or the Broads Authority were to be designated, that would result in decisions that pay less regard to their special qualities. If, in these circumstances, an application for major development were to be made to the Secretary of State, the decision would have to be in accordance with the same statutory principles that apply to the designated authority. Indeed, I expect that they would also be able to access the help of the Local Government Association.
In other words, there would be the same legal obligation to make decisions in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. The Secretary of State will also be under a statutory duty to have regard to the purposes for which the national park has been designated in making such decisions. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I am enchanted by the fact that the national parks have such good people, but that is not what this is about. If they have really good people they are making really good decisions, so they are not in any jeopardy of being designated.
I will resist the amendment and hope noble Lords will understand that, as recognised planning authorities, neither the national parks authorities nor the Broads Authority should be exempt. The communities and businesses in their areas deserve the same standards of service on planning as the rest of the country. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the characteristically friendly candour with which she has replied. I am sorry that she has replied in the way that she has at this stage; it is rather disappointing. She referred to the complexity of the issues facing the bodies that appear in the Bill. However, I would argue that what faces a national park authority is every bit as complex, every bit as difficult and sensitive, as what faces these authorities. They are in a very special category in that context because of these wider issues of the inheritance, the special role of the parks and all the rest. Her argument about complexity strengthens the case for the park authorities being in the Bill.
I must say a word about the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I take second place to no one in my admiration for the tremendous contribution he has made on a lot of green issues in this country. I really do regard him with some awe for the way he has stood up on a number of issues. This makes it doubly disappointing that he said what he said. Why? First, it is not the first time I have heard, almost word for word, that particular contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on national parks. I do not suppose it is the last time we will hear it, either. He clearly once had a very bad night with some of the national parks. I am not quite sure what this bad night was and I would value him putting the story straight with me in the bar one night.
I am sorry if he was left wounded for life, but if he is raising the issue that I am falling back on a generic argument when there are specific examples, why does his argument not apply to the Homes and Communities Agency? Why does it not apply to the Mayor of London or to a mayoral development corporation? Why does it not apply to an urban development corporation? Is he really saying there will not be variations there, or moments of good performance at some times and not such good performance at others? I do not understand the logic of his position. If you accept that there will always be variations but that, notwithstanding those, there are some that have such great responsibilities and complex—to use the Minister’s word again—issues to deal with that they have to be in the Bill, then these unique and special parts of our national parks’ life really should be there alongside the others. Not to include them is to demean them.
If it were not for people who refuse to take no for an answer—those right across the political divide in the 1930s and 1940s who kept going with their arguments, belief and purpose in establishing the parks—we would never have had them. I do not give up. I believe in the power of reason, the power of reflection, the power of decency and the civilised values that I know the Minister shares. If I am to withdraw the amendment at this stage, it is in the real hope—not just as a debating formality—that she will go away with her colleagues, look seriously at this issue again and see if there is some way she can bring meaningful reassurances to this House at Third Reading. In the mean time, on that basis, and in thanking those who have spoken to this amendment, not least my own Front Bench, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Hanham
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an independent review into the impact of the operation of this section on local authorities to be undertaken at the end of a three year period from the date that this section comes into force, and shall lay a report before each House of Parliament.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall be brief. If Clause 1 stays in the Bill, and we hope that it does not, then there is a need for an independent review of its impact. I acknowledge at the start that the wording of this amendment could be improved, as it should focus not just on the impact on local authorities but on the effectiveness of the planning system as a whole, including from the perspective of developers. However, if necessary we can tidy this at Third Reading.
Clause 1 introduces a significant change into the planning system. Subject to later deliberations, we could be giving the Bill approval without the Government’s clear and definitive position on some key aspects—certainly, their response to the planning performance consultation, although the Minister gave us some glimpses of where the Government are on that. We accept that there are obviously more general opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, such as the Select Committee, but we assert that this requires an independent review. Will the Minister give us any assurance about what follow-up is planned to the Bill generally, but specifically to Clause 1 and its impact, and whether the Government would support such a review? I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have no difficulty with the suggestion that we should keep the implementation and impact of this measure under review, but that is not something for which we need legislation. We set out in the impact assessment that, as usual, we will undertake a post-legislative review of the provisions in the Bill three to five years after Royal Assent. This reflects the Cabinet Office guidance on post-legislative scrutiny, which requires that three to five years after Royal Assent the department must submit a memorandum to the relevant Commons departmental Select Committee, published as a Command Paper. This will include a preliminary assessment of the effects of the Bill. Furthermore, the data on local planning authority performance will be published on a quarterly basis and an annual basis, in line with our commitment to transparency. This will allow anyone with an interest to see how planning authorities are performing and, together with the decisions about dedesignation, it will form a view of the impact that the measure is having. The noble Lord’s amendment is not necessary, as this is certainly something that will be kept under close scrutiny. Under the circumstances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I anticipated that that was what she might say in response to this amendment. The only thing that I would say about post-legislative scrutiny, which I certainly support as a concept, is that it does not necessarily introduce this independent aspect of the scrutiny. Still, I wanted to get on the record what the Government planned as a follow-up to the Bill, and the Minister has helped us with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“62C Notifying parish councils of applications under section 62A(1)
(1) If an application is made to the Secretary of State under section 62A(1) and a parish council would be entitled under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to be notified of the application were it made to the local planning authority, the Secretary of State must notify the council of—
(a) the application, and(b) any alteration to the application accepted by the Secretary of State.(2) Paragraph 8(4) and (5) of Schedule 1 apply in relation to duties of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) as they apply to duties of a local planning authority under paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule.
(3) An authority designated for the purposes of section 62A must comply with requests from the Secretary of State for details of requests received by the authority under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1.””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment would remove Clause 1 from the Bill. I acknowledge that the Government have moved a little in agreeing to a parliamentary process of designation of a supposed failing authority, but that does not outweigh the overriding concerns that remain about the clause. The right for developers to bypass the local authority planning process when an authority is designated is a profound one. Not only is it a centralist approach, quite contrary to the espoused localism of the Government, but it breaks a major tenet of our planning system that democratically elected local politicians representing their communities are at the heart of the system.
We accept that not all local planning authorities deliver a top-quality service, no more than do central government. Developers who are frustrated by this have a remedy to go to the Secretary of State for non-determination within fixed deadlines. But we should be mindful of the burden placed on the Planning Inspectorate also by this clause, which already includes the work of the abolished Infrastructure Planning Commission, the examination of local plans and the examination of the draft Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedules.
I am mindful too of the awful budgetary position of many local councils facing major cuts in resources and increasing pressure on services. If local authorities need incentives to encourage development, is that not what the business rate retention scheme was meant to be about and the new homes bonus designed to ensure? Notwithstanding that, there is a proposed basis for having parliamentary oversight; the reality is that designation criteria will be rigid, relating to the number of major applications dealt with and the numbers of major decisions overturned on appeal.
The Government seem to intend that the bar will be raised in subsequent years— this was in the consultation document. This process of designation completely overlooks the fact that timeliness of dealing with applications is not just a matter for the local planning authority. It is influenced by a number of factors: the attitude of the developers, the response times of statutory consultees, the outcome of consultation, the bunching of applications. Although formal and informal agreements with developers to extend the timeframe will be reflected in the designation criteria, it seems there will be room for no other considerations to be taken into account. So it seems that there is no process for making meaningful representations.
The Government line is that designation will apply only to very few authorities, that they will know in good time and can do something about it. But from the Minister’s comments at a meeting the other day, it seems that the numbers are already creeping up and we do not know precisely what the starting or follow-on criteria will be. A parliamentary process helps, but we know full well that statutory instruments cannot be amended. Designation will be counterproductive for an authority which has been through a bad patch and has an improvement plan under way. What are the chances of recruiting experienced quality staff when major applications are likely to head off to the Secretary of State?
The Government should be troubled by what they have heard consistently throughout our deliberations. It is also very clear that there is not strong support from all responses to the consultation. The overriding concern is that, if Clause 1 survives, local planning authorities will be more likely to approve applications with which they would generally not be happy, just to meet a deadline. Quality will be sacrificed for speed and communities will have to live with the long-term consequences. This clause needs to go. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I endorse my noble friend’s amendment and refer for the third or fourth time to what used to be available to local authorities in the form of planning development grant to improve and sustain the capacity of planning departments, which now, like every other local government department, have come under severe pressure due to increasing financial constraints. Will the Minister turn her mind to capacity and how the Government can assist, possibly by restoring some form of planning development grant? They need to ensure that the necessary staff are available with the necessary skills in order to facilitate the speedy, but thorough, examination of planning applications, which is what she, the Government and the Opposition very much wish to see.
Lord True
My Lords, I am certain that my noble friend will not succumb to the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. In a way, reluctantly, I have to say that from my feelings at Second Reading, I think that she would be right to resist his temptations. This Bill as it started, as many of us said, was very broadly drafted, and in many areas it threatened to enable a degree of centralism that was unacceptable and went against what this House had recently argued for. I always accepted that there should be some kind of backstop provision on Clause 1. I was not one of those at Second Reading, as I have reminded the House, who opposed it in principle.
The powerful and eloquent arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, among many others made in this House, have contributed to changes in this clause, which he was generous enough to acknowledge earlier. After the way in which the Government have moved, it would be strange if we now seek to excise the clause. However, I say to my noble friend from these Benches that we will want to watch carefully, and with a mild degree of scepticism, the way in which this clause may or may not be used in the future. I certainly welcome what she had to say on the previous amendment about keeping the matter under review. I hope that the House will not follow the tempting voice of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, into suggesting that this clause, as it has been amended, should go, although there is still much yet in this Bill that needs to be dealt with.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will stand firm. If legislation is important and necessary, it seems to me a first principle that it is important to get it as right, sound and well drafted as possible. I honestly believe that there is room for reflection on how this clause has been drafted. It is full of lurches in administration which are not logically followed through and which introduce contradictions between what is recognised and put on the face of the Bill, and what is not put on the face of the Bill. That is one area of concern.
A much deeper area of concern is the contradictions which this Bill epitomises between the legislation of the Government and their aspirations as put to the people in the general election and at other times. The whole thesis of the Conservative position was that power should be nearer people; that the bodies nearer people should have more authority than they had before; and that there should be distribution of power. Phrases such as “Trust the people” are ringing in my ears. This clause is very central to that.
However, we are moving into an age in which you do not say that ultimately the state has responsibility in a whole range of administration—of course it does —or that we therefore want to enhance and improve the local standards of democracy and the local and more regional ways in which planning and the rest are working. We are moving into an age where the state may say, “We concede that you may be able to get on with the job administratively here but please understand that the real power lies at the centre, and at any point we can intervene and call into the centre the responsibility for what is being done”. How does that add up in terms of the message that was being put to the British people about the belief in the people and the rejection of the concept of overcentralised government? There is a contradiction here. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend was absolutely right to propose the deletion of this clause. I warmly applaud and support him.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I remain uncertain as to the value of this clause but I am clear that the Government, particularly my noble friend, have done a great deal to allay the real and immediate anxieties that we have had. I am sad that the Government put her in this position. The changes that she has made could perfectly well have been part of the Bill in the first place. There are other things in it on which I am not sure that we have yet reached the kind of accommodation that will be necessary if they are not to do serious harm. We shall come to those later.
This is now a better clause after the assurances and changes that have been made. The clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has jut referred is the clause with which we started. We are not discussing that but one that has been amended and clothed by the explanations and references that the Minister has put before us. I hope that others will recognise the sterling work that she has done to get us into this position and perhaps in future we can be a little more careful about how we produce the Bill in the first place. Many of our discussions could have been prevented, in the proper sense of that word, by more care in its drafting and with thought over how one proceeds in a House with sufficient numbers who do not speak from a party political point of view but who have some experience of how these things work out in practice. I hope that this may serve as a warning and a reminder that Bills carefully prepared at the outset are less likely to take time to pass through.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, but then to speculate that if that perfect world existed what function would we be left with?
Three months ago I would have had little, probably no, hesitation in joining the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. When first published, this clause was really the antithesis of localism, which we spend so much time debating. It was clearly centralist and unsatisfactory. Even after some welcome reassurances on Report in the other place, at Second Reading, I still felt that it was unacceptable.
In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, acknowledged that the Minister had moved “a little”, I think his precise words were. That was uncharacteristically ungenerous of him. The Government have moved very substantially on this clause. I have not become an enthusiast for it but I acknowledge that pressure from all sides of this House, some excellent work by the Minister and her colleagues, and other Ministers who have been prepared to listen and hear—to echo my earlier words—have made this clause very much less harmful than it might have been. We have criteria, which will be subject to parliamentary approval, proposed at a very low threshold that, as set now, would catch, if that is the right word, few local planning authorities. We have a process whereby local planning authorities will have good warning of when they are at risk and ample opportunity to improve.
We have heard that that improvement will be sector-led and that the LGA has been in discussions and is prepared to work with local planning authorities at risk and to help them reach the necessary improvements so that they do not become designated. If after all that a local planning authority is performing so badly, it probably deserves to be designated. We are looking at an incentive to improve and not a deterrent to punish. I believe that after the criteria that we have put in place, and the provisos and reassurances that we have had, very few local planning authorities will actually get designated. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, fears that, at least in part, that may in part be because the quality of decision-making is reduced particularly to meet timescales, or, to be less particular, on important issues such as design.
We will have to see, but given how few local planning authorities currently would meet the criteria for designation, I am not too worried about that. If it looks to be the case, we will have to tackle that, but I am not too worried. As I said previously, if at the end of this process the local planning authority is still so bad that it meets the criteria for designation, that may very well be the last resort that has to be taken, but even when we get to designation we should remember that major planning applications will not be required to go PINS; that will be the choice of the developer. The local situation may be so bad that the developer makes that choice, but my guess is that in most cases the developer would still prefer to stay local and stay working with a local planning authority, where by that stage no doubt the relationship would be far from perfect, but there would still be a relationship.
I start to wonder whether this clause—not that it is undesirable—may not be necessary and whether the Planning Minister’s hope and aspiration that it will never be necessary to use it may well come about. Like my noble friends, I have been reassured during the process of the Bill and, perhaps unlike the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I am pleased that we have been able to go through the process, although I would rather not have been in that place in the first place. On that basis, I am prepared to accept the Government’s wish to have this clause as an incentive not a deterrent to encourage those local planning authorities whose performance is far from perfect—and we all acknowledge that they exist—to improve themselves.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think my noble friends Lord True and Lord Tope for their encouraging words and for their recognition of the amount of work that has been done in this House—and we should acknowledge the fact that the House has played a very important part in the changes that we have been able to make in this Bill. I understand that there are still real concerns about it, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred again to localism. This is not an issue of localism but of ensuring that local people get a proper planning service and that local developers get a proper result from the applications that they put forward.
This is not a measure that we take lightly. It is something that we are very serious about because we believe it to be both necessary and appropriate. We are very clear—and I want to emphasise this—that planning decisions should continue to be made locally wherever possible but, as I have emphasised throughout our discussions on this clause, we should be prepared to act where standards have fallen to a wholly unacceptable level. Noble Lords will agree that the criteria that they are working to at the moment would constitute being at a wholly unacceptable level. That is no different from the approach that previous Administrations have taken, and I have pointed out how the criteria were adopted by schools, hospitals and other services under previous Governments. We should be prepared to do the same for planning, not least because of the role that it plays in supporting growth as well as being an important community service in its own right.
We listened carefully to the arguments made in Committee, and the amendments that we have brought forward put beyond doubt that this measure can be used only where it is clear that performance is inadequate and that the ability to apply directly to the Secretary of State will be open only to those seeking approval for major development. We have defined that, too. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, the choice of where this application is heard will still be in the hands of the developers; it is their option to go to the Planning Inspectorate if they are not happy having the application heard by a designated council, but they do not have to. They can leave the application and have it heard in the normal way by the council, if that is their choice. I agree, too, that some developers work very closely in particular areas and therefore have a relationship that is wholly proper with their local authorities.
I also indicated that Parliament will have the opportunity to consider again the criteria for designating authorities before they are finalised and before any changes are made to them in future, if they are to be made. By using transparent criteria, with data published on a regular basis, planning authorities will be clear about whether their performance needs to improve to avoid designation, and through the support package that we have been discussing with the LGA we hope and expect that the number of designations in future will be very limited indeed.
Of course, we also anticipate that the mere existence of this measure will encourage timely and well considered decisions by planning authorities and so avoid the need for designations. I do not accept the argument that local authorities will now rush around trying to get planning decisions through in 13 weeks to escape or grind up slightly from the percentage that might hit the criteria. We have made it clear that they do not need to rush; they need to make a very focused effort on plans. If there are reasons why the planning applications cannot go forward in the normal timescale, then the planning agreement signed and agreed between the local authority and the developer will be recognised as the reason why it has taken longer than normal.
For those authorities that are designated, we are clear that we are not removing any powers from them in any way. The Secretary of State is intervening in only a very marginal area.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the planning and development grant. I point out to him, as I am sure he knows, that planning fees have increased by 15%, and there has been an extra contribution to local authorities from that point of view.
I believe that this clause remains a necessary measure, albeit one of last resort. We have put beyond doubt how it may be used, and thought carefully about an approach to assessing performance that is fair, transparent and minimises any risk of perverse outcomes. My noble friends Lord True, Lord Tope, Lord Deben and Lord Judd—well, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is a friend, but not in this instance—have underlined what I have been saying. There is a need for this, however limited the need may be. I ask the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment; if he does not and he presses it to a Division, I ask the House to reject it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussion and thank my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Beecham for their strong support for the amendment.
What surprises me somewhat is the view that people have taken that the clause is now so dramatically different from what it was at Second Reading, when pretty much everyone who spoke in the debate would have preferred to see it out of the Bill. Along the way, I should say that at no stage would I have it said that I had not recognised the important work that the Minister has done on this Bill, and will continue to do.
Let us look at the position. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he thought that the Planning Minister would believe or hope that this provision would not affect anyone at all. At a meeting just the other day that the Minister organised, he said that the number likely to be caught had gone up and that it could be as many as 20. The criteria that are promulgated—we do not yet know what the final criteria will be—have not changed since Second Reading. The 20% and 30% criteria have been consulted on.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that if local authorities are so bad, they deserve what comes their way. It depends how you judge “so bad”. Part of the challenge that we have is that the criteria are not necessarily a fair determinant of poor performance because so many other factors influence the timing of approvals and the planning process. If you look at what has changed since Second Reading when people were so unhappy with this clause, you will see that we have the term “major development” in the clause but, at the start of our consideration of the Bill here, the position was always that major developments would be caught by this and that was very clear from debate in the other place. The criteria that were promulgated at that stage have not changed.
We have a parliamentary process but, frankly, the negative procedure is the weakest parliamentary process you can have. We know full well that it is not really possible to change those regulations once they come into force. We also know that the Government are seeking to tighten those criteria in the future. They have consulted on that, although we do not know the extent to which that tightening will take place. It seems to me that very little has moved on this clause that is positive. I accept that there have been assurances around sector support, but even that was promulgated around a concept at the time when we debated this at Second Reading. From my perspective, very little has changed in practice on this clause since the Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House. I hear what noble Lords on opposite Benches have said. I am sorry that I have not been able to persuade those who have spoken, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“Local development orders: repeal of pre-adoption intervention powers
(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 61B(1) to (7) (Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may call in unadopted local development order for approval or may direct that it be modified) cease to apply in relation to England.
(3) Accordingly—
(a) in section 61B(1) (power to call in unadopted order) after “local planning authority” insert “in Wales,”, and(b) in section 61B(6) (power to direct that unadopted order be modified) after “local development order” insert “being prepared by a local planning authority in Wales”.(4) In section 61B, after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) Where a local development order is adopted by a local planning authority in England, that authority must submit a copy of the order to the appropriate authority as soon after the order’s adoption as is reasonably practicable.”
(5) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A (power to specify procedure for preparing local development orders) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) Sub-paragraph (2)(a) applies in relation to England as if for “submission, approval, adoption,” there were substituted “adoption, post-adoption submission,”.”
(6) In Schedule 4A omit—
(a) paragraph 4 (information about local development orders to be included in English planning authorities’ monitoring reports under section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004), and(b) in paragraph 1(3), the words “35 or”.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, during the debate in Committee on permitted development rights, a subject to which we shall return on day two on Report, concerns were expressed about the operation of local development orders. In response to those concerns we have brought forward changes to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by proposing the introduction of a new clause to the Bill in respect of the operation of the powers in England. These are matters which are devolved in respect of Wales.
The new clause removes current powers for the Secretary of State to intervene in and approve local development orders and for local planning authorities to report on them in England. This will mean local authorities will be able to consult on and make a local development order without the need to send a copy to the Secretary of State for his consideration and approval. Similarly, an authority will not have to report on the effectiveness of the order. Instead the local authority will just have to send a copy of the order to the Secretary of State once adopted.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(1A) This section only applies in relation to English planning obligations agreed prior to Royal Assent.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the intent of the amendment would be to restrict the application of the provisions relating to modification or discharge of affordable housing requirements to those that were agreed prior to Royal Assent. That amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in Committee, and I am delighted that he has added his name to it today. I should make it clear that this is not an attempt to usurp his role in this; nobody knows the issues better than the noble Lord, but I was not sure whether he would bring it back.
If these provisions concerning renegotiation of Section 106 agreements are not to be removed from the Bill, they must be constrained. We will come on to sunset clauses shortly, but we should note that the Government’s proposition is only one small step from where the Bill now stands. In Committee, we acknowledged the significant contribution that Section 106 agreements have made to this country’s need for affordable housing. We have noted that local authorities have existing powers to renegotiate Section 106 agreements and that many are using these. We remain sceptical about the need for these new powers. However, notwithstanding these concerns, on the basis of the Government’s own logic, there is no need for the rights in the Bill to carry on for ever. If the rationale for Clause 6 is that developers entered into Section 106 affordable housing obligations when economic times were better, is it the Government’s position that things will continue to get worse?
If the clause is to be brought to an end in three years, unless the Government are expecting a further downturn in this period, it should not stand in its current form. When we debated this in Committee, the Government argued that there was continuing uncertainty in the market. That may be the case, but presumably the Minister is not arguing for a risk-free platform for developers. Clause 6 was, we understand, supposed to address the substantial change in market circumstances fuelled by the global financial crisis of 2008. Applicants should not agree to Section 106 agreements that they consider will render their development unviable. The use of viability appraisals in negotiations is becoming increasingly common.
We have added our names to Amendment 28 which, as we have heard, would introduce a sunset clause bringing to an end the provisions relating to the modification of affordable housing obligations after three years. Given that very new affordable housing requirements are unlikely to be able to make successful applications, this would generally mean a practical cut-off point of obligations entered into by about 2014. So far as the Government’s version of a sunset clause is concerned, this does not move us much further than the Bill, which already gives the power to the Secretary of State by order to repeal Sections 106BA and 106BB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government’s version of a sunset clause, while repealing those sections at the end of April 2016, also gives the power to the Secretary of State by order to substitute a later date. In effect, there is no clear end date to these provisions. Therefore, we will look to the Government to explain in detail, when they speak to these provisions, why the firm date of April 2016 is not sufficient. If we are not satisfied, we reserve the right to return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Best
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 22, which was prepared by the Local Government Association. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for introducing this amendment and explaining its purpose and value. My overarching concern is that the intention of Clause 6, which is to see stalled development up and running swiftly, will not materialise without substantial changes to this clause. Indeed, the knowledge that central government may overrule legal agreements between local government and house builders may encourage exactly the wrong response from some elements in the housebuilding industry, and this measure could backfire.
The Clause 6 procedure offers relief for house builders where they have paid too much for a site and now wish to be excused from their obligations to provide affordable housing. Amendment 22 would mean that only agreements already made could be addressed by going down this Clause 6 route. The practice of developers speculatively outbidding others—including housing associations keen to buy a site and fulfil the affordable housing obligations on it—would not be perpetuated into the future. It would no longer be possible for developers to say, “Let us gamble on house prices rising, but if they do not do so, we can go to the Planning Inspectorate and secure a release from our Section 106 agreement”.
In my most charitable moments, I can feel some sympathy for the small builder who is unable to work on a swings-and-roundabouts basis of some highly profitable and some less profitable site purchases and who unwisely paid too much for a site at the height of the boom some four years ago. The bigger house builders are currently doing very well. Persimmon and Bovis have just reported huge increases in profits of more than 50% and more than 60% respectively. Some smaller developers, however, may have been caught out in 2008 or 2009, thinking house prices would rise inexorably when they have been pretty flat outside London and the hot spots. Nevertheless, surely we do not want to encourage continuing speculation on the basis that, from now on, the state will bail out those who bite off more than they can chew. Any developer entering into a Section 106 negotiation at the current time is clearly doing so with their eyes open to the economic realities of the day. These negotiations make use of viability appraisals and the signal must go out to house builders that they can no longer sign agreements in the expectation that they will not really be necessary to honour those agreements because central government’s planning inspectors will set aside their obligations if the developers can show that they will not make a profit of 20% or so.
This amendment draws a line under state intervention in these Section 106 agreements from the date that the Bill becomes an Act. I strongly support it. Alternative amendments for a sunset clause three years hence seem to miss the point. It is now that we want people to get busy and get started on sites that they own and are currently stalled. Every time a local agreement to produce more affordable housing is set aside, households on low incomes waiting for a home are forced to wait longer. We should ensure that this happens on only the rarest occasions. I strongly support an amendment that would stop the perpetuation of the opportunity for developers to renege on agreements that they have signed with local authorities from henceforth.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 28. I strongly support Amendment 22 and the principle behind it that only planning obligations agreed prior to Royal Assent should be included in the Bill. Amendment 28 is a sunset clause, and the Government have, through their own Amendment 32, accepted the principles of this. Our view is that no applications should be made under this section three years after its coming into effect. I accept that there may be a case to give power to renew or extend a subsection if economic circumstances demand it. However, I am not convinced that it should be open-ended and effectively give a power to the Secretary of State to extend it for as long as he would wish it to be extended. I am seeking from the Minister some clarification as to what the Government’s intention actually is with their Amendment 32.
I will be very precise about the questions to which I think the House should seek to secure answers. It would be helpful if the Minister could refine her amendment at Third Reading, so that any extension to the time limit should be for no more than two years from the date it is proposed. That would have to be before April 2016, so it would give an absolute time limit of five years. Secondly, would the Minister commit to presenting a report to both Houses before bringing forward regulations to extend that time limit? Would the Minister also commit to consulting with social housing providers and others prior to presenting that report, in order to inform its contents? Thirdly, will the Minister also commit to accepting the will of both Houses in any vote to extend the time limit?
The Government should still look to extend Clause 6 to include the full range of planning obligations. Not only would this challenge any perception that the Government viewed affordable housing as of secondary importance in planning terms; but if other obligations are causing the delay, that could remove significant impediments to that development. We will have a chance in a further amendment to look at that a little more closely, but I remain concerned that the Government’s amendment is too open-ended.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I should like to explain the purpose and operation of the sun-setting amendment, Amendment 32, in my name in this group. After careful consideration of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee, the amendment we propose sunsets Clause 6 on 30 April 2016 unless an affirmative order is made for it to continue.
Until I heard them speak, I thought that this addressed the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord McKenzie and Lord Tope, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As I made clear in Committee, the clause is targeted at helping development to get under way on sites that are being stalled because of the current economic conditions. We believe it is essential to allow for a review of schemes where this could bring development back into viability. This would deliver more private and affordable homes than would otherwise come forward.
The clause already contains a power for the Secretary of State to switch it off by order, reflecting our underlying thinking that this is about addressing current uncertainties. However, we have listened carefully to the arguments that we should define this more precisely. Arguments have been made that the clause should reflect the current uncertainty in the property market and that we should insert a date when the operation of the clause will cease. We have therefore set the sunset date for 30 April 2016. That is based on the forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility that shows that investment in housing is expected to stabilise in 2016. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said; there is evidence that some of that housing is beginning to move, which is very welcome. This is reinforced by evidence from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which expects house prices to return to pre-recession levels in 2016.
The amendment will send a clear message to local authorities and house builders to review their schemes where affordable housing viability is an issue. None of us can be certain about the future of the property market—forecasts are not guarantees—and therefore we have taken a sensible and pragmatic power to extend this date by order should that prove necessary.
The amendments to Clause 28 will require the order to be made through the affirmative procedure and both Houses will have an opportunity to vote. So there is a commitment for it to come back to this House if necessary. Although the amendment does not limit the time period for any future extension, I fully anticipate that this would be for a limited time justified by prevailing market conditions. In taking this approach, we have again followed the suggestion of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee when it commented on the Bill ahead of Committee. The amendment also includes a separate power to make transitional or transitory provisions related to the sunset of the clause by order.
Turning to the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Best, this would allow only affordable housing obligations in place at the time of Royal Assent to be challenged on the grounds of viability. As I said in Committee, we are still not in a position of stability in the market and, therefore, applying such a limited amendment would not be helpful.
I also provided evidence in Committee from the Office for Budget Responsibility which indicated varied performance across the country. House price growth remains subdued across much of the United Kingdom, and it is widely varied. The recently announced 2.5% house price increase in England was driven by a 5% rise in London and a 3% increase in the south-east. However, in other parts of the country there is a wide variation in house price growth. I said earlier that the forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility shows house price growth stabilising at 4% by 2016-17.
Concerns have been expressed that a developer could agree a Section 106 next year knowing that he could apply to renegotiate it. If the local planning authority has taken account of local economic realities and negotiates a fair and viable agreement, it is likely that there will be no case for reopening the agreement within the short-to-medium term and a developer would not have viability evidence with which to be successful on appeal. The amendments do not make allowance for current market uncertainties. We believe that we need three years for the housing construction market to stabilise. We wish to allow opportunities for scheme viability to be reviewed, even for those which may come forward after the Bill is given Royal Assent.
Amendments 51 and 52 are minor government amendments which make changes to Schedule 2. They seek to change the numbering of an existing amendment to Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. With that explanation for those amendments, and given what I have said about the reasons for the Government’s time-limit on the sunset clause, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his support and for properly and effectively explaining Amendment 22, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his tacit support.
The Government’s response to this is that unless you have certainty in the housing market you must always have the provision currently contained in the Bill. One might accept that argument where there has been particular turmoil in the financial markets—as was occasioned in 2008 when obligations were entered into and the market changed dramatically—but why should there now be this ongoing facility for people who can make a judgment as to what is happening in the market? Yes, there will be some uncertainty—there are always uncertainties in markets—but there is no substantial reason to prolong this opportunity. A cut-off of those things which will have happened by the time this Bill comes into effect is entirely reasonable. In fact, it could be argued that the cut-off should be earlier than that. Indeed, the changes that the Government are making to the regulations generally about affordable obligations go back only to April 2010, so that might be even more restrictive than the amendment allows for.
As to the sunset clause, it cannot be much of a sunset clause if it can be renewed endlessly. There is no certainty as to when its provisions will be brought to an end. I am inclined to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that we will look to the Minister to come back with something more definitive on Third Reading. If the Minister is not able to do so, we will look to amend it because this is, quite rightly, open business. We are dealing with new business tonight which has a continuing uncertainty.
As to Amendment 22, we have not heard a convincing reason why we should not press the amendment, and I seek the view of the House.
Lord Shipley
“(2A) An authority can only make a determination in accordance with subsection (3)(a) if it is satisfied, having regard to the development plan, that modifications to planning obligations other than the affordable housing requirements affecting the development or a reduction in the level of the community infrastructure levy payable would not be more appropriate.”
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association.
This amendment is designed to assess why only the affordable housing element of a stalled development should be considered. To make a stalled development economically viable, it is important to look at the full range of planning obligations, not just affordable housing. Sometimes it might be sensible to vary affordable housing obligations, but at other times other matters, such as the scale of highway contributions or a developer’s community infrastructure levy liability, might have a greater impact on a development’s viability. This approach would reflect the Government’s desire to ensure that planning applications are not acting as a barrier to new development and would give much greater flexibility to planning authorities in their negotiations with developers.
I have read carefully the draft viability guidance on Section 106 affordable housing requirements. It says that the application and appeal process will assess the viability of affordable housing requirements only. It will not reopen any other planning policy considerations or review the merits of the permitted scheme. I believe it is very clear that only affordable housing requirements could be subject to negotiation.
However, it also says at a later point in the draft that the timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered. Will the Minister define an off-site contribution? I take it to be something broader than simply the affordable housing requirement and might actually include the community infrastructure levy. I would like clarification of that because later in the draft viability guidance it says that the relevant sections, Sections 106BA and 106BB, do not provide an opportunity to reopen policy considerations or requirements for planning obligations other than for affordable housing. Again, the matter is clear. Therefore I am left wondering what an off-site contribution actually is, as presumably the affordable housing is on site.
It seems to me to be common sense that local planning authorities should be given the capability to consider other planning obligations as part of a Section 106 agreement beyond simply the affordable housing component. It could be that if there were a successful negotiation on those other matters, it would enable more affordable housing to be built as a consequence. For the reassurance of the Minister, I had not planned to move this to a vote, but I believe that the issue ought to be explored so that we have clarification of what is actually intended and why the Government feel that they cannot permit other planning obligations to be part of the consideration of the renegotiation of a Section 106 agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised an interesting issue, which has been raised at earlier stages, as to why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated. He has also added to his amendment the question of the community infrastructure levy. Bearing in the mind the main purpose of the CIL, I would question whether that would be an appropriate reduction to seek. The CIL is after all intended to provide local authorities with the resources to pay for some of the infrastructure that would be necessary to support the housing requirements. It is true that affordable housing does not attract the CIL, but the rest of the housing development would. If one is going to have a community infrastructure levy, I would be very reluctant to see that negotiated down on the grounds of the developer saying that their scheme is not viable.
We have not had a full explanation of why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated, because there may well be other obligations. I, too, read the sentence in the guidance about the other “off-site” obligations and I was not quite sure what that meant. When I first read it, I thought that it meant off-site affordable housing, but affordable housing is often not immediately on the same site as the rest of the development; it can be on a different site, so I do not think that that is what it means. I would welcome an explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to what is involved. Hitherto, I have wholly supported the idea of renegotiation. Indeed, it has been the main burden of complaint of developers that they have agreed in different circumstances to affordable housing obligations and that it is that which makes their development unviable. That is why there has been, as was referred to earlier, a lot of negotiation going on with local authorities anyway. However, I am not aware of any local authorities which have negotiated reductions in other planning requirements that may have been necessary.
The draft affordable housing requirements guidance states:
“Timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered”.
What does that refer to? I think that I took the guidance off my computer this morning, so it has come just in time. I would be very much against seeking to renegotiate downwards the community infrastructure levy.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we received the draft viability guidance late last night, which was not particularly helpful for discussions that we were going to have this evening. I just put it on record that if, when we have had chance to study the guidance, we found particular issues relating to the Bill, we would reserve the right to pick them up at Third Reading. That should not be precluded given the lateness of the availability of that quite important information.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an important question as to why affordable housing should take all the strain to deal with viability. The amendment does not seem necessarily to preclude an appeal to the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State would do in those circumstances, but that is a drafting point perhaps for another occasion.
Perhaps the Minister might cover in her response the relationship between the Bill and the updated regulations, which I think come into effect tomorrow and deal generally with the right to renegotiate Section 106 obligations, affordable housing and the rest. That would now be done within a three-year period, which I think is the thrust of those regulations. It would be helpful if that could be put in context.
I have been concerned throughout consideration of this Bill that affordable housing is asked to take the strain if a site is not viable. There are broader considerations which should come into play.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think that it is explanations that are asked for rather than anything else. I was asked what “off-site” provision was. It is exactly what it says. As noble Lords will know, when an obligation is entered into for affordable housing, in many cases that affordable housing is not on the main development site but is being provided elsewhere. All the guidance says is that any affordable housing that is not on the particular site can be taken into account. I hope that explains that. We discussed this quite a bit in Committee but it should be quite clear that this clause relates only to affordable housing. That is the only element that we are seeking to address within this Bill.
Local authorities can voluntarily renegotiate Section 106 agreements already. Under the regulations that have just been laid, they can be required to look at the whole aspect. Often the affordable housing is quite a large aspect of the development obligations and it therefore makes sense not to go through the whole galaxy of the Section 106 review, but to take account of the affordable housing and go through a quicker process.
This is, of course, taken into account against the background of the development plan and has to be reviewed under those provisions together with what was taken into account when planning consent was granted in the first place. The development plans include policies for the delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs. These policies are usually applied in the context of individual site viability. The effect of the clause is to help to deliver these policies by bringing forward viable development; it does not require a revisiting of the plan policies.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made, I think, a moderate complaint about the fact that the proposals for establishing viability appeared only last night. I recognise that and I apologise that they were rather late. However, they are not very detailed and I think anyone with a lunchtime would have had an opportunity to read them. However, lunchtime does not exist in my life and maybe not in other noble Lords’ lives either, so I understand the noble Lord’s point.
The obligations that we are discussing were probably agreed at the time of the property boom and before the statutory tests for Section 106 were introduced in April 2010. Before then there was no statutory requirement to ensure that obligations were,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Therefore, there may be capacity to revisit a range of obligations that were required before the tests were in place.
A full review of all aspects of an agreement could be costly and time-consuming for both parties. We wanted a streamlined review process as a backstop whereby viability is an issue. Affordable housing obligations are often the most expensive element of the Section 106 agreement and are agreed subject to viability. Research from 2007-08 found that about 50% of all planning obligations were for affordable housing so this is quite a significant area. That is why we have focused on only the affordable housing element of a Section 106 agreement in the Bill. For obligations agreed since April 2010, the statutory tests should ensure that the local authority can require only those items that are,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Our approach will safeguard essential mitigation measures, such as transport, open space and education provision, which are required for the scheme to go ahead, and would be part of the overall Section 106 agreement but would probably take a great deal longer to negotiate. To open up the clause to these other obligations would add complexity to the review and could make the development unacceptable in planning terms.
I turn now to community infrastructure levy payments, which I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned but my noble friend Lord Jenkin did. It is not very helpful to bring them into consideration here. The community infrastructure levy is non-negotiable so it cannot be taken into account as it cannot be renegotiated. The levy is up front—developers know what they will have to pay and it is predictable. It is set at the local level in accordance with local viability. Local authorities do not have discretion to waive or reduce the community infrastructure levy once the payments are set. The regulations make provision for exceptional circumstance relief but only subject to very strict criteria.
With those explanations and going back to the indication that this clause relates only to affordable housing in this Bill, that Section 106 agreements can be renegotiated voluntarily and that the regulations for post-2010 are now in place, I hope noble Lords will realise that there is a package here and will not press their amendments.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for her explanation. I am sure that we share the aim of wanting to build more affordable housing. In accepting the Minister’s assurances about the Government’s desire to get housebuilding on-site, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
(a) ”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, these amendments set out procedural steps to reflect the existing mayoral planning powers on applications of strategic importance in London. They are therefore in line with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Tope and supported by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, in Committee.
We are proposing that the mayor should be notified of applications under Section 106BA relating to planning consents on which he was formally consulted, and that he should have the right to submit evidence on the viability of to those applications if he wishes. To ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner, we have set tight timescales for the Mayor of London to notify and submit representations to the authority. The mayor will have seven days from the day the application was received by the authority to notify it of whether he wants to make representations. The mayor will then have 14 days from the day the application was received by the authority to submit representations, or such other time as agreed between the authority and the applicant. The local planning authority will have an additional seven days to determine any application to which this amendment applies. That is to reflect the additional time needed to work with the Greater London Authority. I hope noble Lords will welcome the amendments we are proposing and I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(8A) Regulations under subsection (8) shall be in the form of a statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I turn again to the tardiness of the criteria. The noble Baroness may have been able to look at them over lunch; I was dealing with the consultation responses, which arrived on my desk this morning. Having said that, we need to study the guidance and reserve our right to deal with any residual issues on Report. I was not going to move this amendment, but I did not want to leave hanging the two important amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The purpose of Amendment 25 is to say that it should not just be left to guidance; there should be a process and a statutory instrument that deals with viability issues, given its importance. I will be happy to reserve judgment on that once I have had the opportunity to study in detail what was issued to us late last night. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I apologise. I always manage to do this once, sometimes more than once. Perhaps we can rest a moment before we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which I have noted but which I shall say more about, requires local authorities to have regard to regulations setting out how viability will be assessed. Those regulations are to be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure. I hear what the noble Lord says about returning to this at Third Reading, but in the mean time it might be helpful if I just go through where we are.
The draft viability guidance has been circulated to assist the House’s understanding of how developers, local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate will approach the new process. It is an early draft, and we intend to discuss it further with professional bodies and interested groups before a final version is issued on Royal Assent.
Noble Lords will see that the basic principle of the guidance is that it works with existing industry practice on assessment of viability. It strongly encourages developers to use the same methodology and basic assumptions as in their original assessment and to focus on what has changed. A number of technical questions have been raised on the draft viability guidance. If it would be helpful to noble Lords, I am happy to have a meeting between now and Third Reading to hear views and see whether we can resolve, or at least discuss, some of the issues.
There is a good deal of technical information in the draft guidance, which needs to be kept under review. Using secondary legislation would not allow the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and data that statutory guidance offers.
Noble Lords will recall that the legislation for the community infrastructure levy, introduced under the previous Government, makes provision for statutory guidance. That covers the assessment of viability for the purposes of setting the levy. It is a model that allows for the required flexibility and is one that we intend to follow.
I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, even if only for the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I certainly propose to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful for the offer of a meeting between now and Third Reading to have at least some chance to discuss the draft guidance. I hang on to the point that, as the noble Baroness said, this is an early draft that gives us no further formal opportunity for input. The criteria will be central to the operation of the provisions. Perhaps that is a matter for Third Reading, but I would be very interested in taking up the offer of a session before then on what detail is available. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
(b) where the determination relates to an application to which section 106BAA applies, any representations made by the Mayor of London in accordance with that section.”
Baroness Hanham
“106BAA Duty to notify the Mayor of London of certain applications under section 106BA
(1) This section applies to an application under section 106BA(2) in relation to a planning obligation where—
(a) the application for the planning permission to which the planning obligation relates was an application to which section 2A applied (applications of potential strategic importance relating to land in Greater London),(b) the application for planning permission was not determined by the Mayor of London, and(c) pursuant to an order under section 2A or a development order, the local planning authority that determined the application for planning permission was required to consult the Mayor of London in relation to that determination.(2) A local planning authority that receives an application to which this section applies must send a copy of the application to the Mayor of London before the end of the next working day following the day on which the application was received.
In this subsection, “working day” means a day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, Bank Holiday or other public holiday.(3) The Mayor of London must notify the local planning authority before the end of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the application was received by the authority whether the Mayor intends to make representations about the application.
(4) Where pursuant to subsection (3) the Mayor of London notifies the local planning authority that the Mayor intends to make representations, those representations must be made before—
(a) the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the application was received by the authority, or(b) the end of such longer period as may be agreed in writing between the local planning authority and the Mayor.(5) Where this section applies, section 106BA(9)(b) applies as if it required an authority to give notice of their determination to an applicant within—
(a) the period of 35 days beginning with the day on which the application was received by the authority, or (b) such longer period as is agreed in writing between the applicant and the authority.”
“( ) the modifications necessary to ensure that if the market value of the development has increased over that predicted before the first application under section 106BA in relation to the obligation, the developer will pay a contribution proportionate to the increase in value to the local planning authority, solely for the purpose of providing local affordable housing linked to the development plan for the area.”
Lord Best
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 30, 31 and 35. I preface my remarks by thanking the Minister for a really helpful and lengthy meeting at which a number of my earlier amendments were discussed. On the basis of that discussion, I have dropped three of my amendments, either because I have better understood where the Government were coming from or because I noticed some modest amendments along the way. I was extremely grateful for that more than helpful discussion.
Amendments 30, 31 and 35 all address the hazards in Clause 6 and are intended to ensure that the clause achieves what the Government intend: to get developers on site and building new homes as a quid pro quo for being able to increase their profits on sites where they have previously signed up to obligations to allocate some homes for affordable housing.
Amendment 30 would protect the local authority, the taxpayer and the people who need affordable housing from developers being excused from their obligations on the grounds of expected low house prices today but making substantial profits in future when house prices have risen appreciably. The amendment inserts a clawback provision for the local authority to receive payment in kind if values rise more than expected. A highly unsatisfactory outcome from the use of Clause 6 by a developer to secure a reduction in the affordable housing on its site would be for it simply to await house price increases and make a killing later. Then, the developer would see bigger gains in the years ahead, but the whole purpose of the Bill—to get sites developed today—would be thwarted.
When I brought a similar amendment from the LGA before your Lordships in Committee, the proposition was that local authorities should share a proportion of the profit from future sales if they turned out to be at higher levels than had been expected when the deal was considered by the Planning Inspectorate. The revised amendment is intended to address concerns raised by your Lordships that that route would not be appropriate. The new version would ensure that the local authority could claw back only a commuted sum—payment in kind—in the form of finance specifically to replace some or all of the affordable housing in the original planning obligation, probably to build offsite. That seems entirely reasonable and I hope that the revised amendment will be acceptable to Ministers.
Amendment 31 takes the story forward. It is intended to address the situation where, after a Clause 6 negotiation has reduced the previous requirement for affordable housing, the developer does not, as the Government hope, start swiftly on site but instead awaits the moment when the market is more favourable and prices are higher. The primary reason why sites are stalled is the reluctance of housebuilders to press forward with developments of homes for sale because the local market is sluggish and, if they build too quickly, it will be impossible to achieve the prices they desire.
Even if they are allowed to produce fewer affordable homes—homes which are usually transferred to a housing association for rent or shared ownership—the market for outright sales will remain the same, and the housebuilder may well prefer to await an upturn rather than, despite the earnest hopes of the Government, getting going with the building work which is so badly needed. Amendment 31 would compel the developer to commence construction within six months if it receives a favourable outcome from invoking the provisions of Clause 6 and secures a reduction in its legal obligation.
That is a fundamental point. Unless there is a benefit to society in the form of a rapid start on site, most people would surely ask why the state should be intervening retrospectively to overrule a legal agreement between a local council and a housebuilder simply to increase the profits of the latter. Why should central Government step in when a speculative land purchase now means that a development is not as profitable as the housebuilder had hoped? After all, no one has suggested that local authorities should pursue housebuilders for an increase in the quota of affordable housing when, a year or two after an agreement was signed, house prices rise dramatically, as they did a few years ago, when unexpectedly high profits were made.
If the developer is able to negotiate a reduction in their Section 106 obligations, they will raise the value of the site without laying a single brick. Amendment 31 is intended to overcome this major defect in Clause 6 and require housebuilders to commence construction within six months if they receive a favourable outcome from their appeal. If the Planning Inspectorate has found the development would not have been profitable because of the level of affordable housing required and has reduced that level accordingly, there should be no good reason why the developer should continue to sit on their planning approval. Instead of being accused of land banking, they should then start delivering the homes the UK so badly needs.
Finally, Amendment 35 puts the finishing touches to these proposed changes to Clause 6 by raising the threshold of what defines commencement of development on site. Planning permissions do not last indefinitely, and in considering whether to extend a permission or allow it to expire, a local authority considers whether the developer has commenced development, defined as a “material operation” in Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Act sets out what a developer has to do on site to implement a planning permission. The physical works that make up a “material operation” can be relatively minimal when compared with the totality of the development— for example, digging a trench or starting to lay a road. Case law is clear that it does not matter if the developer carries out those works simply to keep the planning permission alive, rather than with a genuine intention to complete the development. If developers have to start within six months, but simply dig a ditch, Amendment 31 has not taken us forward.
I moved an amendment in Committee to enable local authorities and developers to agree at the outset what the definition of commencement would be. The Minister’s response, which I fully understand, was that this would create a postcode lottery, with every council doing things differently. The problem might be countered with non-statutory guidance on best practice. However, in recognition of ministerial concerns, I am now suggesting an amendment that raises the threshold of what is defined as commencement. This amendment would alter the current definition of what constitutes a “material operation”. It would require a certain percentage of, for example, the foundations to be completed to count as a material operation and thus keep the planning permission alive. Spelling this out would have the benefit of certainty. It would encourage developers to move from commencement to completion faster in the future because a greater proportion of costs would have been incurred at an earlier stage.
In combination, these three amendments salvage something sensible from Clause 6 and save the Government from falling into a trap. The worst possible outcome would see the clause to reduce the amount of affordable homes that developers are required to build proceeding, but developers still not getting on with the job and instead banking the increased value gained from having their obligations reduced and waiting until house prices, pressurised by escalating shortages, rise and bigger profits can be made. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask a question because there is something I do not understand? What is there under present law to stop a local authority saying to a developer, “Yes, we’ll agree to this, but there are other conditions that are part of that deal”? All that the noble Lord suggests could be perfectly properly achieved in a deal with the local authority. What sort of local authority would give its permission without such a deal taking place?
Lord Best
These cases are historic, dating back to 2008-09, where a Section 106 agreement has been signed that does not specify that commencement on site must happen within six months or what commencement on site means, other than within the law. The agreement has not been, if you like, sharply enough defined, although it has followed standard practice. The opportunity then exists for the developer to say, “I don’t wish to proceed on this basis. I shall use Clause 6 and the Planning Inspectorate to reduce my obligations. Even though I signed up to that, I don’t want to be held to it any longer because I have decided that the profitability of my scheme would be increased if I waited some time and did the development later”. These amendments put pressure on the housebuilder and enable the job to be started.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and would like to speak in particular to Amendment 31, to which my name has been added.
I regard this as a public interest matter and I am not currently assured that this is being addressed adequately in the Bill. It seems to me that taxpayers have a right to secure clawback if, following a renegotiation, there is a rise in the value of the land. That clawback should be spent on affordable housing because it was the inability to build and the requirements around the level of affordable housing that caused the renegotiations to take place initially. There is a public interest issue here on behalf of the taxpayer, who should be able to share in the rise of the value of land.
On Amendment 31, it is reasonable that an applicant, having renegotiated successfully, must commence development within six months of the final appeal decision. Otherwise, if they do not get on with it, what is the point of that appeal having been made? It seems to me that the public interest requires a developer to get on with the building, having successfully renegotiated the arrangement.
I read very carefully the draft liability test and I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to define “commencement” as at present it can only be defined in terms of the case law that exists. I find Amendment 35 to be extremely helpful because it seeks to define what commencement means. Also, in terms of securing an outcome—renegotiation—which is in the public interest and in the interest of taxpayers, it seems reasonable to have a tighter definition of what commencement means.
Lord Deben
I wonder whether my noble friend could help me. It may be that I am extremely stupid about this, but I do not understand why it is not possible for the local authority, as part of its renegotiation, to insist upon these things in any case. Why can it not say, “As part of the agreement we want to do this, but the deal is you do actually get started in the way that we between us decide is a start.” Is there anything illegal in doing that?
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention. The Minister will be in a better position to reply, but it seems to me that, where there is agreement, these matters can be satisfactorily resolved. The problem arises when there is not agreement, as a consequence of which a decision has to be made. The case law definition of commencement will then be used; it will enable a whole set of minor things to be done and the developer is deemed in law to have commenced development. Amendment 35 defines much more closely what commencement actually means.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, there is a certain amount of misunderstanding arising in this situation. As I understand it, if the new clause is left as it is, on the planning inspector agreeing a reduction the developer would have no obligation except the statutory obligation. He could not, or the local authority would not be in a position to, redefine the commencement of development because the statutory authority would open the way such that the local authority could not close it. The view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is that it might be a good idea to permit the local authority to make such an arrangement. However, that is not provided for as yet and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seems to deal with this. The local authority might make an even better definition, depending on local circumstances, but having some power in the local authority to persuade or force the developer to get on with it in a reasonable time, if he takes the reduction, seems essential for this to work.
Lord Deben
My Lords, there is an issue here. I do not actually like the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, because it seems too prescriptive as to how it might be done. I am entirely in favour of this clause. It is very important, in the present circumstances, to find a way of not insisting upon the kinds of costs which were possible at a time in which prices were utterly different. I therefore like the clause but I am concerned that it does not include the possibility of local authorities saying “Yes, okay, the inspector has said that we can reduce the number by this level but the deal is that you get started—and these are the terms of getting started that we want”. In other words, I am not sure that I want to have statutory, public, universal terms because it would seem much better to have it dealt with at local level, and to lay down there which definition of commencement was necessary in this circumstance by this particular local authority.
I am not sure that I like the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Best, has brought forward but my noble and learned friend has pointed to the fact that we need some sort of answer. If we do not have one, people will be getting a deal and then not doing what we are trying to bring this forward to achieve. I do not know whether my noble friend would be right to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful to us if she were prepared, at least, to look again at having some kind of mechanism so that this was not misused, instead of being the very valuable thing which it could so easily be.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we need to be a little careful about Report stage rules.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support Amendment 31; indeed, I have added my name to it. Compelling early undertaking is absolutely right when people have had the benefit of a change of Section 106 obligations. Having heard the noble Lord’s reformulation of Amendment 30, we support that as well, since it deals with the point that the Minister raised in Committee.
I understand entirely the thrust of Amendment 35 and what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve by it. I have a slight hesitation about the detail. I am sure it would be a lawyers’ paradise to try to determine whether 50% of the foundations have been laid or whether 50% of a road has been laid, for obvious reasons. Would it be cost, width, depth or whatever? However, that should not preclude an attempt to get something more effective than what is there at the moment, so perhaps that is a task to be done between now and Third Reading.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained clearly that his amendments are aimed at ensuring that development happens. We all want to ensure that happens, as there is otherwise no purpose in this clause. I understand the desire that, in return for an adjusted affordable housing obligation won at appeal, a developer should get on and build. Planning consent is permission to build; it is not a requirement to build. The purpose of this clause is to give developers an opportunity to build, allowing them to review schemes against prevailing market conditions and secure a viable affordable housing agreement. We should remember that without this clause many housing sites will not come forward at all, which is not what we want. Of course, having put in place a revised agreement, we want developers to build, and that is the purpose of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
Clause 6 places a three-year time limit on modified obligations made on appeal. If the development is not completed within three years, which is the other side of the coin that the noble Lord referred to—he was talking about commencement while I am talking about completion—the original affordable housing requirement will apply to those parts of the scheme which have not been commenced, so there is a difficulty for the developer in that. Developers are incentivised to build out as much of their scheme as possible within those three years. It will not be sufficient to commence one part of the development to secure the revised affordable housing obligation for the whole scheme.
For example, on a scheme of 100 homes, if 50 units are completed at the end of the three years and the remaining 50 are not commenced, the appeal decisions would require that the original obligation would apply to the remaining 50—so we would go back to 100. If developers are concerned about the viability of their scheme at the end of the three years, they can seek to modify the agreement again. This could be done through voluntary renegotiation or by making a new application under this process.
We believe that the clause ensures that we incentivise build-out and completion. Local authorities are not bound by a three-year decision, but we are clear in our draft guidance that they can follow similar time limits prescribed for appeal decisions. We believe that this decision is best made locally. Where the matter has gone to the planning inspectors, the local authority can of course put its own evidence to the Planning Inspectorate, which could include evidence on commencement of the development. That could become part of the modified planning obligation if the planning inspectors agree to it.
I hope that the noble Lord will take some comfort from our being aware that local authorities have a wide range of tools and powers to encourage development. Those may be through the way they use the Section 106 agreements flexibly or in the way that they support development through investment in infrastructure or the use of land assets. We are aware of local authorities which have introduced clawback agreements to incentivise developments and we understand that those may be appropriate in some circumstances.
More specifically on Amendment 31, which prescribes a six-month commencement for appeal decisions, I said in Committee that I thought setting a six-month period in primary legislation was too prescriptive. I am particularly concerned that placing a six-month limit to commence development will allow little time for developers to get on site—this is the other side of the coin that we have just been talking about. Not all schemes will be ready to go when they are renegotiated. Regeneration schemes where land is in multiple ownership or where planning conditions need to be met before development can commence could be excluded from this process by the six-month limit. Sites where significant work, such as decontamination, needs to be done to prepare the site for development could be excluded. We want to ensure that we deliver as many homes as possible through this measure, not through an overly prescriptive approach, which could be counterproductive and end up with these measures having no effect.
In Amendment 30, the noble Lord, Lord Best, proposes to require the Planning Inspectorate to introduce a clawback in appeal cases whereby the local authority receives increased funds for affordable housing if the market rises. I oppose this amendment because it requires the Planning Inspectorate to make provision for a clawback agreement, which would impose a requirement that will not be appropriate in all cases. I am also concerned that this amendment might have unintended consequences. In cases where a variable agreement would be onerous and unnecessary, the inclusion of the amendment could discourage developers from appealing. We need developers to engage in this process and ensure they can secure viable agreements and we can then secure the affordable housing.
I will now turn to the new clause on redefining commencement. The definition of commencement and material operation serves a wide range of purposes in planning law. It triggers the payment of community infrastructure levy and Section 106 revenues. Perhaps most importantly, it is used by local authorities to establish whether a development needs planning permission and can form the basis of enforcement action if a material operation has taken place without permission. In short, the amendment would have far-reaching and fundamental consequences that go far beyond its intention, which is to prevent developers from doing a minimal amount of work lawfully to implement a planning permission. The noble Lord spelled that out quite clearly.
Changing the commencement threshold in the way envisaged would not have a substantial effect on the behaviour of developers. Any new definition of commencement would simply create a new minimum threshold for such developers to build to. The additional costs for a developer in doing so would be unlikely to be significant in the context of an overall construction budget. Furthermore, the complexity of the threshold proposed would result in uncertainty and confusion that would affect all parties involved in the planning process, including local authorities. As the definition of development is a highly contested part of planning law, it would be likely to result in a significant rise in legal challenges as the courts interpreted the new definition. Any legal definition of commencement should be exactly that: the point at which a development is commenced. It would be counterfactual at best to say in legislation that a building project where the foundations or roads are 49% complete or where only 99% of the pipes have been connected has somehow not legally begun.
In short, while I recognise the problem, this is not the right solution. It would do very little to address the problem, while it would have wide-ranging consequences for other areas of planning practice and have a very significant adverse impact on local authorities, developers and third parties. There is already a power available for a local planning authority to serve a completion notice to deal with uncompleted development. However, a far more productive approach would be to address the underlying reasons for developers delaying their schemes. The Government recognise the importance of this through a number of initiatives, such as the £570 million Get Britain Building fund to unlock stalled sites.
I hope that with these comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best
My Lords, I am very grateful for the debate that this has stimulated and for the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. We have explored an issue and taken it a little bit further than anyone has before in these public fora. These ways of trying to persuade the developer to start building—which is what we are all about—are quite difficult, and it is quite messy to concentrate on defining where commencement really lies. Concentrating on completions of developments which are, obviously, at a later date than my six months for a start, sounds a much improved way of looking at this. I had not appreciated—and I am not sure if others had—that it will be possible for the Planning Inspectorate to place conditions relating to a timescale and a definition of starting on more than simply the reduction in the amount of affordable housing. The assumption has been that it is the reduction in affordable housing that the planning inspector can talk about, and these other, more sophisticated, aspects of getting things going have been beyond the remit of the Planning Inspectorate when these appeals come forward. We are hearing tonight that the planning inspector could, in a way, substitute for the negotiation that has failed at the local authority and developer end. These cases have gone forward only because earlier negotiations have failed. It could be that the planning inspector could substitute for that and come up with a set of requirements that go with the consent to drop the amount of affordable housing.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining these issues in more depth. I will go away and think about them and hope that, within that explanation, there are the seeds of hope.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do about this, I would like to air the question of whether the planning inspector has these powers. The noble Baroness assumes that he has these powers, but I am not immediately sure that he would have them because the statute prescribes what he can do. She may be right—I am not saying she is not—but it is a critical part of her answer. In so far as it is correct, the answer is, no doubt, a good one, but if it is not correct, the answer is, to that extent, defective.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I need to answer this. The inspector will have the power to say that these developments have got to be completed within three years.
Baroness Hanham
“(4) Sections 106BA, 106BAA and 106BB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and subsection (5) of this section, are repealed at the end of 30 April 2016.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4) by substituting a later date for the date for the time being specified in that subsection.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order make transitional or transitory provision or savings relating to any of the repeals made by subsection (4).”
Baroness Hanham
Forestry: Independent Panel Report
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report of the Independent Panel on Forestry, published on 4 July 2012.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, because the right reverend Prelate’s Question for Short Debate will now be taken as last business, the time limit for the debate now becomes 90 minutes rather than 60 minutes. Speeches should therefore be limited to eight minutes, except for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool’s speech and the Minister’s speech, which remain limited to 10 and 12 minutes respectively.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, you do not need to be a sociologist to know that there are moments in history that reveal the character of the nation. Such was the public reaction to the possibility that something might happen to our forests and woodlands. The people of England discovered a passion for trees that they hardly knew they had. It was a surprise to some, not least because our woodland cover hovers around 10%, whereas Europe as a whole has forests that extend to about 40% of the landscape. Maybe it is because we are less wooded that the people were even more protective of the trees that we do have.
I pay tribute to local people who emerged as guardians of the forests, to the 42,000 people who made submissions to the Independent Panel on Forestry, and to the hundreds of stakeholders who came to our regional consultations. The panel, set up by the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, was made up of dedicated experts in the field of forestry and was served by an equally determined and industrious secretariat. Our report and recommendations were unanimous. They captured the public mood and, more importantly, interpreted that mood into policy recommendations. There was robust debate in the panel but never any acrimony, because we were all united in a determination to lay before the Government and the people of England the clearest signposts for a new public policy on forests and woodlands that would serve the country for the whole of the next century.
I am delighted with the Government's response. Although the panel was disbanded on completion of its task last July, I shall shortly convene a meeting of the panel at which members can express directly to the Secretary of State the full range of their views. However, no one can deny that the direction of travel in the Government’s response follows the signposts of the panel’s recommendations, and the Government are to be congratulated on responding constructively to the mood of the nation, expressed so vociferously and articulated so cogently.
Forgive me now for going through this alphabetically. First, on access, forests and woodlands provide the largest leisure facility in the country, with an estimated 300 million visits a year. For the sake of recreation and health, user groups must now work with owners locally to agree the fairest access, each considerate of the needs of the other.
Secondly, on biodiversity, wildlife is affected directly by woodland management. It is a mistake to think that nature, without the symbiotic co-operation of humanity, will protect our biodiversity. The Government must now fulfil the requirements of international obligations on biodiversity that they have helped to formulate.
Thirdly, on conservation, our ancient woodlands are as integral to our cultural heritage as are ancient buildings and landscapes. They are a priceless asset. They must be protected as much as possible from the encroachment of development.
Fourthly, disease and pest control are seriously threatening and require research and resources on a cross-border basis, not least because disease and pests do not respect national boundaries. Each nation must contribute urgently and generously to this work, and the core expertise available at the moment through forest services must be expanded.
Fifthly, ecosystem services are, simply, vital. Trees deliver clean water and clean air. They protect against flooding and contribute to a low-carbon culture. Speaking very personally now, and without the authority of the panel, I wish that there were some way of linking payment for such ecosystem services to our utility bills. That would show the public their worth and provide money to invest in our ecosystem infrastructure.
Sixthly, forestry expansion and better management require both public and private investment. Creating the woodland industry action plan, as the Government have already done, and renegotiating the rural development programme are both steps in the right direction of stimulating the woodland economy, which in itself will help to green the nation’s economy. Forestry is good value, as the Church Commissioners’ investment portfolio shows; I declare an interest.
Seventhly, guardians will hold the public forest estate in trust for the nation under a parliamentary charter. The Government’s response to this recommendation from the panel could not be clearer. Succeeding the Forestry Commission, this new and evolved body will have important freedoms. It will be set free from the short-term political cycle that is so at variance with the lifecycle of trees, and it will be free to be entrepreneurial, so that within a stated plan of forest expansion it will be able to maximise the potential of all its assets. By buying, borrowing, selling and sowing, it will create more woodland nearer to where people are, not least in and around our urban areas.
The Government have accepted the guiding principle of the panel’s work that a new national policy on trees delivers a triple bottom line of public benefits: social, environmental and economic. Trees are good for people, good for nature and good for the economy.
The Government’s response would gain even more support and traction if they were able to indicate a timetable for the implementation of these recommendations. The sector has been marking time now, unsure of the Government’s intentions. Those intentions are now clear, but could the Minister indicate when they will publish a timetable?
As I said in the foreword to the panel’s report:
“Our forests … are nature’s playground for the adventurous, museum for the curious, hospital for the stressed, cathedral for the spiritual, and a livelihood for the entrepreneur. They are a microcosm of the cycle of life in which each and every part is dependent on the other; forests and woods are the benefactor of all, purifying the air that we breathe and distilling the water of life”.
The voices of the people showed how fertile England is for trees, the independent panel prepared the ground, the Government’s response is like a planted sapling, and the water to make it grow must be the political consensus and will to ensure that these recommendations are now translated into policy. The narrative of faith that has influenced this nation is based on a wise and sacred text that begins and ends with human life centred on a tree. Similarly, I believe that the forests and woodlands of England can provide, as it were, a canopy of leaves through which light and shade are shed for no other purpose than the health of the nation itself.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I applaud his most interesting speech and the constructive and comprehensive report of the panel over which he presided. I want to highlight one or two aspects that featured in his report. I particularly welcome the emphasis given to education—the need to involve people and to teach them, as he pointed out, the value of trees, woods and forests and the importance that they represent not just for our pleasure but for our survival. However, I hope that education will not be restricted to visits by primary school children; older people need to know about the value of trees just as much as small children do.
The second point that the report emphasises is the need for access to forests for the purposes of leisure, recreation and tourism. Those activities can be damaging to the very environment that we are seeking to protect in our forests and woodlands. Many decades ago I wrote a report for the Council of Europe on sites of national scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I remember that in preparing the report it was clear that too many people going into sensitive environments like woodland settings can, as a result of their footprint and their sheer numbers, cause an enormous amount of damage. Damage was also caused by other leisure activities, and I just hope that whoever runs our country’s forestry activities will recognise the need to control them. Noisy activities such as motorcycling should not be allowed because woodlands are places to be enjoyed in quiet and in a degree of silence. People can absorb what the woods can give to them only if they listen. If they have ears to hear, they will hear what the woodland has to teach them.
The third point I want to stress is the value of woodland, of tree planting, as a role in flood prevention. We have had a lot of experience of floods—too much recently in some parts of the country. If trees are planted in the river source, they will not only stabilise the soil, they will control the tendency of those rivers to flood. It is most important that we do not look simply at flood barriers at the end of the river, we look at the flood protection work that tree planting can achieve at the source of the river.
The Government have now declared themselves as intent upon nationalising the public forest estate, or rather, to put it more delicately, keeping it in the public sector. I hope they will stress the need for the public forest estate in the public sector to engage as much as possible in joint venture activity with the private sector. The forest cover of this country should not be retained solely in the hands of a public sector organisation. Too often, a public sector organisation becomes excessively bureaucratic and expensive, and develops its own degree of inertia.
I hope that the Government will press forward vigorously with their own statement of priorities and principles. Among other things, these are to reduce Government involvement; minimise the amount of regulation; encourage local participation and local initiative; and, above all, work in partnership with other interests. Other interests are well represented by private landlords; by estate owners; by organisations such as the Tree Council, the Woodland Trust and the International Tree Foundation; and also by those who are engaged in wood-working enterprises and industries of various kinds. Joint venture, private public partnership, seems to me to be the right way forward.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this debate today and for the important work of his Independent Panel on Forestry. It seemed a model in capturing the public’s mood and their undoubted love for woodlands and forest while, at the same time, achieving the difficult job of coming up with some very practical and workable policies which have secured the consensus of a vast number of stakeholders. I congratulate him.
Equally, I congratulate the Government on their response to this broadly welcomed report, with the majority of stakeholders supporting the commitment of the Government to increase our woodland cover from 10% to 12% with the long-term vision of moving towards 15% and keeping the publicly owned forests in public hands.
How we take this forward is key for the future. I hope that the Minister, in his summing up, will cover these three points. First, on the crucial issue of funding for forestry, we welcome the Government’s commitments during the current spending review period, but the independent panel and the Government see funding through the common agriculture policy as crucial to deliver on these forestry goals. The Government have been making a strong rural development regulation a priority in the ongoing CAP reform negotiations, pressing for more money for Pillar 2, as we need incentives to work with private landowners to deliver more woodland.
In the recent letter to the House of Lords Sub-Committee D setting out the result of the recent vote by the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee on CAP reform, including the future of the RDR, the Secretary of State outlined that MEPs are not allowing the payment of income foregone for afforestation. Can the Minister offer some clarification on that and the impact that would have on incentivising and achieving the Government’s goal of increasing the amount of woodland cover to 12%?
Secondly, on delivery vehicles, we all look forward to the debate in this House when the Government bring forward proposals for the new operationally independent body to manage the public forest estate. Meanwhile, however, there is a question mark over the future of forest services. The Government say they will confirm the organisational arrangements through which the Government’s forestry functions will be delivered after the triennial review of the Environment Agency and Natural England. We expect the initial conclusions from that in the spring.
The Independent Panel on Forestry supports the retention of the Forest Service organisation. The Forest Service is a small organisation with fewer than 30 members of staff, but has a key role in promoting sustainable forestry and biodiversity. I therefore welcome that the Government are considering the synergies of function between the work of Natural England and the Forestry Service as part of the triennial review.
As someone who has real concerns about any proposals to merge the Environment Agency and Natural England, I am open to the potential of closer links or, indeed, merging Natural England and the Forestry Service to create one organisation with a strategic overview of all terrestrial landscapes and habitats.
The report of the Independent Panel on Forestry was clear that delivering landscape-scale conservation would require the integration of policy and delivery mechanisms for woods, trees and forests with the wider landscape, for example, by integrating incentives for woodland management and creation with agri-environment schemes.
It is also important that we retain a strong body of advice and expertise capable of influencing government on the delivery of a wide range of agendas where forestry has a decisive role to play, from areas across government as diverse as providing green space for public health to carbon storage.
Finally, on engaging stakeholders, the independent panel’s report rightly challenges stakeholders as to how we can all play our part in delivery. Post the report from Ian Boyd’s tree health and plant biosecurity task force next month, are the Government planning to resource any further stakeholder engagement mechanisms to aid implementation and ensure a sense of shared purpose? Are they looking at the merits of the old England Forestry Forum or the success of the Green Food Project as models to ensure that momentum is kept up and the outcomes we all want for forests are delivered?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I have an interest to declare which is in the register. I have also been involved as a land manager and a contractor for the past 20 years.
I would like to thank the right reverend Prelate, as other noble Lords have done, for introducing this debate and commend his report for its thoroughness. I also read with interest my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s response to the report.
There are a few points in the right reverend Prelate’s report that I would like to explore a little further. One of the first matters of prominence raised was calling on the Government to pioneer a new approach to valuing and rewarding the management, involvement and expansion of the woodland ecosystem. The Government referred in their response to the Rural Development Programme, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also mentioned. I am much interested in whether the Minister can say how this fund could help in those periods where funding in forestry can be very difficult to attain.
Another objective was to increase public access to woodland. In the report, the public estate—in other words, Forestry Commission land—amounts to around 18% of UK forestry. This is not the whole story. I should be most interested to know whether the Minister can give an idea of how much of the remaining part of the forestry estate UK in public, NGO and private ownership provides some form of public access. Perhaps it might be easier to say how much of the forestry estate does not provide any access to the public.
It has also been proposed and agreed by the Government that there should be more woodland closer to areas of high population. I do not want to appear negative on this subject, but in my book woodland areas considered to be close to urban areas would be within an hour’s travelling. There is high demand for land close to the urban population. An illustration of the value of that is a four-acre paddock close to me for sale at £20,000 an acre. Planting trees on it with reasonable spacing will cost £1,500 an acre. Once trees are planted, the value will drop to about £8,000 an acre, as can be seen by the value of forest land already on the market.
The big difficulty is that if trees are planted on very high-value land, there will be an immediate drop in its value. Encouraging people to plant trees in these areas, whether in the public or the private sector, will be very difficult. Following that, there will be about 20 years of high maintenance costs and very low income before gaining even the lowest amount of income from thinning or whatever. It will be in the region of just a couple of hundred pounds an acre. I of course recognise the social and environmental reasons for woodland, but if we are to increase our woodland by a substantial amount—even 1% or 2% is a substantial amount—we will have to get around that problem.
The report also calls for an increase in the amount of woodland managed to the UK forestry standard from 50% to 80%. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how much woodland managed to the UK forestry standard is grant-aided and whether we have a gap of forestry that has been grant-aided but does not reach the UK forestry standard. Having entered many forestry holdings in the past into management agreements, even then I was horrified by the amount of paperwork involved in the exercise. Last week, having downloaded all 116 pages of the UK forestry standard, I hope my noble friend will listen very closely to me when I say that perhaps we could look at cutting a bit of red tape.
I have also consulted some of my forest manager friends who are very concerned that if management plans become a key driver in securing grant assistance for woodland creation and management, it could be a major disincentive to landowners at large to bring their woodlands into better management or to plant new woodlands. Recent experience with linking grant aid to forest certification has had a similar effect.
Some planting that we see nowadays, particularly by some non-governmental organisations, has provided excellent amenity woodland and public access but has not produced good-quality timber. It is possible to have good amenity and public access, and still grow quality timber. Some amenity timber planting has been planted at three-metre spacing. The outcome of this spacing is poor-quality timber and high maintenance costs. At three-metre spacing, a forester would have just over 1,200 trees per hectare. If he decreased that spacing to 1.5 metres, he would have 5,000 trees per hectare. The higher the density, the less maintenance and the better the quality of the timber.
I could go on on this subject. We have to ensure that we plant the right trees in the right place. That means not just planting in the countryside but structural planting and planting on housing estates where we end up planting enormous trees at great expense. We should look at planting far smaller trees and letting nature take its course. They will grow far better, but if they die it would not be that expensive to replace them. I greatly look forward to hearing from the Minister and other noble Lords.
Lord Framlingham
My Lords, I join the congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on securing this debate about trees, which are so central to our national welfare. His panel’s recommendations are excellent, very timely, positive and forward looking. Like us all, I have a huge affection for trees. I founded and ran for many years my own forestry company and I was for some time president of the Arboricultural Association. It is hard to improve on the description of the value of trees given by the right reverend Prelate, although I shall try briefly.
It is hard to believe that trees fulfil so many functions. They take our waste carbon dioxide and give us their oxygen. They provide us with timber for so many uses, including construction, housing and flooring. They provide habitats for birds and insects. They alleviate flooding and stabilise land, to which reference has already been made. They help landscape towns and gardens. Most importantly of all, they are beautiful to behold.
The holy grail, the most important buzzword politically in these days of economic recession, is growth. Trees cannot by themselves solve our economic problems, but they can help a little because they grow. Trees have not heard about the AAA rating, the value of the pound, the national debt or the balance of payments. You plant a tree and, provided you take some care in doing it, it will grow year on year, increasing your investment both in timber and in pleasure. We have every reason in the world to plant more and to look after them.
I want to make just two points. My first point, which has already been touched on, is about the balance between public and privately owned trees, leaving aside the question of access, which I acknowledge has to be handled carefully. I am anxious that there should not be the idea in the mind of the public that one is more desirable than the other. While it clearly is helpful and desirable to have public and government involvement in the planting and maintenance of trees and woodland, I trust it also will always be acknowledged that private landowners planting and caring for their own trees on their own land will always have a huge investment in those trees financially and, more importantly, emotionally.
My second point is about the vexed question of chalara fraxinea, ash dieback, its possible disastrous effect on our landscape and what can be done to prevent similar outbreaks. I do not want to rehearse all the history of how we got to where we are. We are all waiting now to see what the new growing season will bring and then what action, if any, will prove necessary. My concern is how it got here from Europe and the fact that we are squandering the priceless asset of being an island nation in terms of our bio-security.
Since the Plant a Tree in ’73 campaign, the demand for trees has increased steadily. This has coincided with the globalisation of tree diseases as trees are routinely shipped around the world. As nurserymen have increasingly imported stock, the situation has been exacerbated by two other factors. First, to protect themselves against the last-minute cancellation of orders because of lack of funding or grant withdrawals many UK growers have used foreign suppliers as a kind of bank to draw on rather than growing the trees. Secondly, UK seed has been grown abroad and reimported as plants to preserve its UK provenance. This has resulted in the importation of trees on a massive scale: 500,000 ash trees alone on an annual basis. Oliver Rackham, a well-known botanist and ecologist, has written:
“It seems that any of the world’s plant diseases is at liberty to enter Britain provided it does so via some other European Union country. By the time the problem has been detected and the bureaucracy has clanked into action, it is too late. Once a tree disease has become established in a country, it is almost unknown for it to be controlled, let alone exterminated”.
It must be possible with the co-operation of all the organisations concerned and with the Government to devise a system that allows for the sensible forecasting of demand, by species, of the number of trees required nationally in the coming years. Without sacrificing the competitive tendering process, surely the nurserymen and the horticultural trade can be given the kind of firm commitment to numbers required that would allow them to expand and grow the trees that we are going to need in the years ahead. We could then be more self-sufficient and reduce our dependency on foreign imports. This would not eliminate the possibility of importing new diseases—only a complete ban would do that and we may have to consider that—but such a commitment would be an enormous step in the right direction, and I urge the Minister to give it the most serious consideration.
Perhaps I could give your Lordships’ House two illustrations. If you go to Christ’s College, Cambridge, and walk through its fantastically ornate and famous gate to the fellows’ garden you will see a mulberry tree under which John Milton is supposed to have sat as he composed Paradise Lost. You could not imagine a more idyllic situation. If you drove up to Wakefield and got the Home Office’s permission to go into the top-security prison there, you would go through a very severe-looking gate into a yard at the back. There is another mulberry tree, standing in the circular island in the middle of the yard. This used to be the exercise yard when the prison was for female inmates. They were allowed to exercise only around this island that contained the mulberry tree. They were not allowed to speak, so they had to mime. This of course is from where we get the mime: here we go round the mulberry bush on a cold and frosty morning.
These illustrations show the part that trees play in all our lives. We must look after the ancient ones because they have such wonderful history, like our own Catalpa trees in New Palace Yard., and we must plant new ones because trees play such an important part in our national life.
Lord Lyell
My Lords, I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate for instituting the debate tonight. I also have to declare an interest. If noble Lords glance at the relevant documents, they will find that I purported to be responsible for some forests in Scotland. I have enormous interests in Liverpool. In an earlier incarnation, the right reverend Prelate was once kind enough to bring some wonderful primary school children to play harp music, which showed us one aspect of that wonderful city. The right reverend Prelate has spoken broadly. Those of your Lordships who might go to Liverpool are perhaps not aware of an area that I tend to go to, Quickswood and Woolton, together with huge areas of parks. I do not tour round many of the great cities of northern England. There are certainly lovely parks here in London. What the right reverend Prelate has in Liverpool is something of which to be very proud and it is relevant that he has started this debate.
I go to Liverpool for various activities and have been going there for 45 years. Last night, and all the time, there is a blue glow. Interestingly, the son-in-law of my great friend at the blue glow centre—he will be known although he was not on the panel with the right reverend Prelate—is called Chris Starr, and he lectures and teaches. Above all your Lordships will be pleased to know that he put a sharp pin into me and told me to cut down the speech and just concentrate on what is necessary. From the University of Cumbria he has taught me a great deal about forests.
Will the Minister let me know later—not necessarily tonight—about item 6 in the Government’s response, which was referred to by the right reverend Prelate, looking at what is good for the economy? I understand that the benefit of the forestry industry in England and Wales is £400 million per annum. That is the net financial benefit to the nation. There were costs of some £72 million, which have gone out, and at the moment land sales are frozen. That does not necessarily worry one too much. Above all, can my noble friend confirm and give us any good news about resilience in the forestry industry? There is a great partnership of public and private owners throughout the country.
Item 6 of the Government’s response states that forestry is good for people and the right reverend Prelate referred extensively to that. Every single one of us—the right reverend Prelate has the figures—sees, enjoys, visits and relaxes in the forests. Here I may clash ever so lightly with my noble friend Lord Eden, though this may not be something covered by tonight’s debate. Not 50 miles from where he and I used to meet in Scotland, one of the most valuable sources of income for the Forestry Commission, doing minimal damage, on one day in the year, was car rallies. If my noble friend thinks that everything is sylvan rural and that you can hear a pin drop, he might wish to hear some of the forest machinery at work, but he is absolutely right that a forest should be a place of enjoyment and relaxation.
As I have said, it is above all good for people. I found a headline about a bit of education. We are lucky that this aspect is in Scotland, and more and more in England and Wales, and in Liverpool too; it is about encouraging youngsters and older people of all types to come out and learn to appreciate trees and forestry that they might not otherwise have looked at. Stressed in the Government’s reply to the wonderful report by the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues, and particularly important, are local participation and the involvement of local communities for their advice and thoughts. In almost all cases, they produce very constructive results, especially when foresters join in. They might come and ask whether you have tried, for instance, kestrels, on a Lodgepole Pine, which apparently kept the voles down, but until the RSPB came nobody had necessarily thought of that. Participate as far as you can with local communities.
Perhaps my noble friend can write to me on this. I understand that we have seen a figure, and that it is hoped that 12% of England will be forested by 2060. I am not too sure what the percentage is as of today, but I know that many years ago I was catapulted off to Northern Ireland, where I was given the responsibility of agriculture. Guess what we had there—forestry. I seem to recall that the figure for England, Scotland and Wales was something in the region of 10%, but I would be most grateful if my noble friend could indicate tonight or later how near we are to that target figure of 12%. In 1984, I noted that in France and what was then West Germany the relevant figure for land covered by forestry was 22% and 23%. Perhaps it is dangerous to talk of like for like, when they have different climates and different types of tree.
The report has been very encouraging, but the finance will take a generation. I am not married, but for those who are married, it will take virtually until their grandchildren are around before they see the benefit and, above all, note what is there.
I make one main, lasting plea. My kind friend in Temple Sowerby in Cumbria asked me to ask the Minister to see what his department could do to use the existing land that is available for planting or is not being fully utilised for forestry purposes. If he could look at that, it would be the first step. Then one can expand elsewhere, planting suitable trees in suitable land.
I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister and even to getting my knuckles rapped by him.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this important debate today. It is always good that this House, which is so knowledgeable on forestry, has the chance to debate it. I declare an interest as a surveyor, although not one who has practised for some time; however, when I was practising, I did quite a lot of forestry.
I want to focus on three parts of the Statement that my honourable friend the Minister of State made on 31 January about the future of forestry. My heart lifted when I read that the Government are going to review the “wider forestry functions”. This is a wonderful opportunity to sort out the Forestry Commission. I have disliked it ever since I started to learn about forestry; it is judge, jury, prosecution, defence and practitioner all in one. It is totally inappropriate these days that all those functions should be held in one body. It plants the wrong trees in the wrong place and regularly lags behind the pace of change of the private sector, which is totally in hock to the Forestry Commission and has to follow its bad practices of even-aged, single-block woodlands, followed by the dreadful desecration of clear felling. Nothing could be more unnatural. We are not good at forestry in this country, but we are very good at growing trees in straight lines, sawing them flat and bulldozing the remains into piles. That is not what I call forestry.
For 40 years, I have been saying that we should move to mixed, uneven-aged forestry, with no clear felling. I have advocated that, and I hope that now is the right time for Her Majesty's Government to insist that at least half the state forests should be converted to this type of management. That would require massive retraining and education to make our foresters proper foresters in this country. We would have to bring in overseas experts, who do this well, to train them—but if the Forestry Commission and the state sector were doing this, it would encourage the private sector to do it and fulfil all the aims of what the right reverend Prelate is trying to do. You would get better disease control, better diversity and better wildlife, as well as better economic return from following that type of management, if done properly.
I move on to the future of forestry. To paraphrase part of what my noble friend Lord Courtown said, “It’s the economics, stupid”. There is only one tree in this country that is economically viable, and that is a Sitka spruce. Some 80% of the timber produced in this country is from that tree. There is a good market for its timber, and it is producing some 3% to 4% annually biological growth. That used to be a poor return, but today it is a very good one when compared to other investments. The land prices continue to rise. As my noble friend Lord Courtown said, there is a differential between agricultural land and forestry land.
So Sitka spruce is good, but what about the rest? They range from variable to just acceptable to disastrous, unless one has top quality hardwoods. Ash and larch are a disaster at the moment because of disease, and oak might well go that way soon. So let us look at what has happened to prices. The coniferous standing sales average price index shows that there has been a 58% decline in real terms since March 1985 to September 2012. That is a staggering loss for landowners and, until that situation is rectified, there is only one economic tree available.
With regard to hardwoods, the right reverend Prelate said that we must have a plan for the whole of this century. That is about three-quarters of the time it takes to grow a decent stand of oak, so we are not looking at a 100-year programme but at one of at least 200 years. Of course, our hardwoods have been decimated by two world wars. The whole planting system is out of kilter and we have a lot of catching up to do. Perhaps one chink of light is thinnings, which have been a disaster area for so long, but they are beginning to show some sort of return because so much is now being used for fuel.
My third point is that we need to plant more land. However, we must plant the right trees in the right places. The Forestry Commission has planted 72% of its land with conifers, but in the private sector the figure is only 17%. That is a much more interesting figure. If we plant 50% more woodland, as the right reverend Prelate says in his report, what will it mean? He also wants the land cover to rise from 10% to 15%. That would roughly take us back to what this country had at the time of the Domesday Book. To plant that amount of land would require about 650,000 hectares, which is about the size of Cumbria. For noble Lords who are not very good on anything north of Watford, that is more than the size of Kent, Surrey and Sussex put together. It is a fair chunk of the country.
If the only tree that is economic to grow is Sitka spruce, the only land that should be used is in the north of England. The right reverend Prelate now faces a dilemma because he wants trees to be planted much closer to the towns, which is right; there should also be more trees down south. How will those trees be funded? If they are to be recreational trees, which people can go out and hug and which make them feel better—I fully agree that that is essential—who will fund them? Will it be taxpayers? Have the Government got taxpayers’ money for that? Unless the Government give considerably more subsidies and good grants to those landowners who are prepared to use their land for a loss-making enterprise—they will have to look more than 100 years ahead—with the best will in the world, that will not be done.
As this is a very long-term operation, the dark cloud on the horizon in forestry terms is climate change. If anything like the worst predictions come about, we will not be able to grow the kind of trees that we have now and to decide now about hardwoods, which might not be growing in the same places in 50 or 60 years’ time, is another disincentive. That makes it very difficult for the Government to sell that to the private sector and to their own state arm, but we need to take it into account because if this country warms up or we get more gales and more wind blow, we will have to plant different areas with different species. We have not been good at that in the past and I fear that we might not be very good at that in the future.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for this debate, but more importantly for so brilliantly chairing and guiding the independent panel on its journey through the challenging but beautiful landscape and livelihood of our forests and woodlands to a superb report on their future and the social, environmental and economic opportunities that they offer. He made a splendid speech today and I wholeheartedly agree with his ABC, but I also rather like the idea of linking the benefits of our trees and forests to our utility bills, and I hope that that can be explored.
The panel’s report gave us hope after the depressing, dangerous and quite extraordinary proposals from a Government willing to sell off one of our most precious assets: our forests and woodlands. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the terrific campaigns that swiftly grew and gave powerful voice to our concerns, specifically my own Hands off our Forest, which was instrumental in bringing together thousands of members of the public under the Forest Campaigns Network and helped to inform the panel’s deliberations.
I welcome the positive tone of the Government’s response to the report, their commitment to retaining the public forest estate in public ownership, the rescinding of the policy of disposing of 15% of the estate, and their commitment to expanding our public forests. I have to disagree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Eden, on the public forest estate, which I believe is well and sustainably managed and is much more efficient in many ways in its productivity than the private estates are. To the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I say that in the Forest of Dean we have good access, we have great social benefits and we have a well managed sustainable forest with excellent timber.
In answer to some supplementary questions in this House a couple of weeks ago, the Minister hinted that we might expect a Bill to be announced in the Queen’s Speech. I would welcome that, but I would also suggest to the noble Lord that such a Bill should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny to ensure maximum opportunity for consultation. I am extremely concerned about the much valued and multi-expert Forestry Commission, both its future and its current situation. I do not agree with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, although he was right to point out that our forests were decimated by two world wars. In the Forest of Dean, our forest was decimated by the Armada and by Trafalgar.
The Forestry Commission has already suffered massive cuts, yet its work increases by the day, especially on diseases such as ash dieback disease. Today in Eastleigh, I happened to meet Forestry Commission people from the New Forest who, like my friends in the Forest of Dean, are overburdened and deeply anxious about their future and about the effect that the cuts will have on the viability of the proposed new management organisation and the implementation of the proposed policy. I again ask the Minister for confirmation that there will be no further redundancies and no further cuts to the budget, and for his assurance that the Forestry Commission will be adequately funded. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I am concerned about the future of forest services and the retention of its invaluable expertise if there is to be a merger.
When considering budgets, I urge the Government to take a holistic rather than a silo-based approach, looking at the public benefits of our forests. In addition to the green economy, which has massive potential for expansion, mental and physical health as well as the social and wider environmental and biodiversity benefits should and must be taken into account. The independent panel informed us that,
“If every household in England were provided with good access to quality green space, an estimated £2.1 billion in healthcare costs could be saved. And the social costs to the impacts of air pollution are estimated at £16 billion a year in the UK”.
Many things should be taken into account.
The new operationally independent body is to have,
“the ability to hold the assets”—
—the land and trees comprising the estate—
“in trust for the nation”,
but nowhere does it say whether it is to be freehold or a leasehold vested in the guardians or the trustees. I would be grateful for clarification; likewise about the guardians. The Government’s response appears to have substantially watered down the role of the guardians when compared with the intention of the independent panel.
Who will those guardians be and what will the balance be between industry and community and between environment and economics, and who will appoint them? Indeed, how will the independent body itself be constituted and appointed, and how will the contents of the charter be agreed? As the right reverend Prelate said, the independent panel recommended that the quantity and quality of access to woods be increased so that access to woodland should be the norm. I understand that one way in which the Government are looking to increase access is through developing rights of way improvement plans. In the light of a recent Ramblers Association report showing that nearly 70% of councils have cut their rights of way budgets over the past three years, will the Minister ensure that the necessary resources are in place for local authorities to review and develop these plans?
Many noble Lords have spoken about access to the private and public estate. The independent panel’s report suggests that,
“The public forest estate represents more than 40% of accessible woodland in England despite representing only 18% of the total woodland area”.
That suggests that access to the public estate is far greater than access to the privately owned estates. As a forester I have to mention a specific concern of my friends in the Forest of Dean. The Government’s policy statement recognises,
“the unique historical, environmental and cultural characteristic of the living, working landscapes in its individual forests and woodlands, such as the New Forest and Forest of Dean”.
That echoes the words of Lord Mansfield in this House on 1 July 1981 when he said that the Government recognised that the Forest of Dean was unique. On that occasion the Forest of Dean’s unique qualities secured exemption from the power of disposal granted by the 1981 amendment to the Forestry Act 1967; it was the only forest in the United Kingdom to be so exempt.
Today, however, we seek something more than protection from disposal. We expect the new operationally independent body to respect, protect and sustain the history, environment and the natural and cultural heritage of our populated working forest. I will be looking to Parliament to impose on the new body the duties to secure these and grant it the necessary powers. I say that having regard to the more limited aspirations in the Secretary of State’s statement that:
“The new body will have clear statutory duties, powers and functions focused on maximising the economic, social and environmental value of the Estate, including a requirement that it should improve the financial sustainability of the Estate”.
We must not lose sight of the fact that people live and work—for example, Freeminers—in my forest, the Forest of Dean.
I end where the right reverend Prelate began. Trees are good for people, nature and the economy. They are vital to the future well-being of our nation. I therefore trust that we can now move forward to implement, through legislation, the recommendations of the independent panel’s report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)
My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his leadership of the independent panel and for calling this debate today. Before going further, like him, I have to declare an interest—in my case as a woodland owner and lover. Under his leadership the Independent Panel on Forestry brought together senior experts for the land management, forestry, wildlife charity and wood business sectors, and produced an excellent report, setting out a compelling vision for the future of England’s trees, woods and forests. I am grateful to him for his kind words about our response to his panel’s report.
In his introduction to that report, the right reverend Prelate commented how, as a society, we had lost sight of the value of trees and woodlands. The panel’s report challenged all of us—the Government, the forestry sector and society as a whole—to value our nation’s woodlands more. We have embraced this challenge with passion and conviction. Our Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement, published on 31 January, addressed all of the issues raised by the panel, and went further by setting out a new policy approach to our forestry responsibilities based on the clear priorities of protecting, improving and expanding our woodland assets. It also recognised the scope for realising more of our woodlands’ value through a better understanding of the benefits they provide and the importance of ensuring that we have the most effective and efficient delivery arrangements in place. It included over 30 new steps that my department and the Forestry Commission will be taking and it invited all stakeholders, including those involved in the panel, to work with us to deliver the new woodland culture envisaged by the panel.
At the heart of this new policy statement is a firm commitment to the public forest estate. It will remain secure in public ownership for the people who enjoy it, the businesses that depend on it and the wildlife that thrives in it. To achieve this, we will set up a new operationally independent body to manage the estate and hold it in trust for the nation. It will have greater independence from government, greater freedom to manage its resources sustainably and a clear remit to maximise the income it generates from the estate through entrepreneurial activity. The estate will, however, remain firmly in public ownership and the right safeguards will be in place for it to operate for the long-term benefit of people, nature and the economy. Our statement also recognises that there is an important job for the Government to do with the wider woodland and forestry sector, providing it with appropriate leadership and support so that we can grow our forests and protect what we have.
Last year’s outbreak of Chalara ash dieback, to which my noble friend Lord Framlingham referred, reminded us that our most urgent priority is to protect tree and plant health. I had the opportunity to see for myself the effects of Chalara fraxinea in Wayland Wood in Norfolk. I would like to thank my noble friend for his helpful suggestion about the benefits of more advanced notice of requirements for saplings. We are giving this careful thought.
In recognition of the scientific advice that it will not be possible to eradicate Chalara and that, on the basis of the experience in Europe, there is no effective treatment, we are now focusing our efforts on minimising the impact of the disease on our economy, environment and society, and discovering how we can build resilience to this and other tree diseases. The next step will be the publication of an updated control plan at the end of March, which will set out our approach around four key objectives. They are slowing the rate of spread; developing resistance in the UK ash population; encouraging citizen, landowner and industry engagement; and building resilience in UK woodland and associated industries.
In addition to the control plan, we have introduced tighter controls on the import of native tree species and established the independent expert task force—convened by Defra’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd—to examine further ways to prevent plant pests and pathogens entering the country. This task force will report later this spring.
Recognising the long-term investment needed into tree health, we have allocated £8 million from the existing but unallocated evidence budget for new research into tree health over the next four years and are working with partners and stakeholders to take forward further research. The Forestry Commission has also increased investment in tree health research from its existing resources by 30% over the next 3 to 4 years. In addition to protecting what we have, we also need to make more of what we have. This means improving our woodlands in order to help drive economic recovery.
Just under half of our woodlands in this country are unmanaged or undermanaged. We want to encourage landowners to bring neglected woodlands back into management, improving their resilience, supporting economic growth and delivering benefits for wildlife. To do this we need to remove barriers preventing them from doing so and to develop further the markets and supply chains that will help them realise an economic return from their woodlands. We therefore warmly welcome the initiative to develop the industry’s new action plan under the leadership of Dr Peter Bonfield. It is one of the most exciting developments for the sector in a generation.
Making more of what we have also means maximising the social contribution of our woods and forests, including recognising the health and educational benefits that they provide and supporting communities in playing a greater role in management of their local woodlands. We want to improve public access to our woods and forests, particularly those close to towns and cities, so that the greatest number of people can enjoy them for exercise, leisure and recreational purposes.
The panel rightly encouraged us to take the long-term view. We need to act now to ensure that we have resilient woodlands and a secure supply of timber in the future. England’s woodland cover currently stands at just over 10%, double what it was a century ago. We believe that there is scope for increasing this cover further to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits. We will therefore work with others to expand our woodland resources by creating new woodlands and increasing existing woodland cover where it will most benefit the economy, communities and the environment.
We want to see better quality outcomes for the environment, the economy and society, and that involves the contributions of all our network bodies. We are putting the public forest estate on track towards a sustainable long-term future in public ownership. It is right that we also consider our broader forestry functions alongside the outcomes of the triennial review of the Environment Agency and Natural England and the conclusions of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Task Force. We fully recognise the important work that our forestry experts within the Forestry Commission currently do and will ensure that any changes strengthen our national forestry expertise.
I turn now to the questions asked. The right reverend Prelate asked about the publication of a timetable for implementing the commitments. My department and the Forestry Commission are currently developing an implementation plan for the 37 commitments in the statement. This includes setting up significant projects, such as that to establish the new public forest estate body, and we will set out our progress in implementing these commitments later in the spring.
My noble friend Lord Eden referred to the value of silence. I agree with him about woodland noise rather than the noise of motors. I think there is—dare I say it?—a place for both, although I share his personal preference for the predominance of woodland noise. He asked whether leisure facilities have an adverse affect on the environment. I agree that there needs to be a fair balance struck between the two. He asked about the role of the private sector in the public forest estate. I agree with the points that he made. The public forest estate already works closely with private sector partners, including on joint ventures. My noble friend may be aware of Go Ape!, which is an excellent example of a joint venture with the private sector. We have made it clear that we will expect the new body to act entrepreneurially and work closely with the private sector. He made a point about the role of trees in flood alleviation, and I agree with him on that.
My noble friend Lady Parminter asked about funding through the common agricultural policy. She will know that we are currently negotiating the new rural development programme and very much hope that this will provide resources for the future. We cannot make any firm commitments about how much will be available to support forestry initiatives at this stage. We will, however, be consulting on its objectives in the spring. She asked about the functions of the various forestry bodies in the context of the triennial review. We have confirmed that we intend to retain forestry expertise within government and will set out our plans for delivering forestry functions after the triennial review has reported.
We are now considering the functions currently delivered by the forest services directorate of the Forestry Commission alongside the work to review the functions and form of the Environment Agency and Natural England in their triennial review. This work is separate to but following the same principles underlying that review, namely better integration, greater affordability and improved service to achieve better quality outcomes for the environment, economy and society. We will confirm the organisational arrangements through which the Government’s forestry functions will be delivered after the triennial review reports its preliminary conclusions in the spring.
The noble Baroness asked about stakeholder engagement. We agree that it will be vital to involve stakeholders as we implement and build on the policy statement. We have established the National Forestry Stakeholder Forum and have committed to bringing it together again to report on progress later this year. We are also including clear stakeholder engagement strands in the new projects that we are establishing to develop the new public forestry safety management body and to review the functions of Forest Services.
My noble friend Lord Courtown asked about the UK Forestry Standard active management plans. We recognise concerns over the size of the documentation. We have recently published a new quick-start summary of the standard aimed at enabling more landowners and businesses to understand and use it.
I apologise that I have run out of time. There are a lot of questions that I have not yet answered. I will take advantage of the invitation of my noble friend Lord Lyell to write to him about his question. May I write to other noble Lords?
I will try to address a couple of the important questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. She said that I hinted that there might be a Bill in the Queen’s Speech. I actually said that Governments zealously guard the secrecy of what is in the Queen’s Speech. Her own Government did that, I am sure, as much as we do. She suggested that the Bill should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. That is a suggestion that I will take back, if I may.
The noble Baroness asked about redundancies and cuts. We continue, as she will know, to face very challenging financial circumstances, requiring hard choices to be made across the whole public sector. The Forestry Commission has had to bear its share of the cuts that we have had to make to bring public expenditure under control. The department has confirmed the Forestry Commission’s provision for 2013-14 at £39.2 million and we provided an initial £3.5 million as cover for loss of income from woodland sales that were to have been made, making a total of £42.7 million.
The noble Baroness asked about a charter and what a guardian will do. We will consult on the finer details of the organisation’s shape, structure and remit in due course and I hope that she will contribute to that process. I will write on the other questions, if I may.
Delivering on the vision of the panel and the objectives set out in our policy statement calls for creative thinking and partnership working to protect, improve and expand our woodlands and forestry assets. Success will see our environment, wildlife and economy thrive and create the new woodland culture that we all want to see.
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [HL]
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text