Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Third sitting)
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Impact review: automatic enrolment and pensions savings—
“(1) HMRC must review the impact of Lifetime ISAs on workplace pensions automatic enrolment and pensions savings within one year of this Act coming into force and every year thereafter.
(2) The conclusions of the review must be made publicly available and laid before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would place a duty on HMRC to review annually the impact of Lifetime ISAs on automatic enrolment.
New clause 2—Lifetime ISAs: Advice for applicants—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for all applicants for a Lifetime ISA to have independent financial advice regarding the decision to save in a Lifetime ISA or through a pension made available to them.
(2) Any applicant that opts in to the services offered under subsection (1) shall be given a signed declaration by that service provider outlining the financial advice that applicant has received.
(3) Any provider of a Lifetime ISA must confirm whether the applicant—
(a) intends to use the Lifetime ISA for the purposes of paragraph 7 (1)(b) of Schedule 1,
(b) has a signed declaration of financial advice under subsection (2),
(c) is enrolled on a workplace pension scheme or is self-employed.
(4) Where the provider determines that the applicant is—
(a) self-employed and does not participate in a pension scheme,
(b) not enrolled on a workplace pension scheme,
(c) does not intend to use the Lifetime ISA for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 1, or
(d) does not have a signed declaration of financial advice under subsection (2)
the provider must provide information to the applicant about the independent financial advice available to them under subsection (1).”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that ensure all applicants for a Lifetime ISA receive independent financial advice.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Opposition’s new clauses 1 and 2 are designed to address the concern expressed across the board, including by the pensions industry, the trade union movement, Select Committees of this House and the Office for Budget Responsibility, that the lifetime individual savings account poses a threat to traditional pension savings, and most significantly to auto-enrolment.
Auto-enrolment has been a success story in the pensions environment. As Members will recall, witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee had one or two things to say about LISAs. For example, some made it clear that there is concern about the LISA interfering with the roll-out of auto-enrolment. Mr Davies suggested that although few object to the LISA, there is concern about
“where it fits within the overall landscape of provision for retirement”.––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 38, Q65.]
Given that, it is incumbent on us to ensure that any reasonable concerns are assuaged. The cost to the taxpayer, certainly in the longer term, was also of concern, given that for a standard taxpayer, the LISA is tax-free going in and going out, so to speak. Mr Davies of Union Pension Services certainly alluded to that.
New clause 1 would require Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to conduct a review of the impact of the lifetime ISA on automatic enrolment in workplace pensions and pension savings within one year of the Act coming into force and every year thereafter. The conclusions of that review would have to be made publicly available and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
It is patently obviously that automatic enrolment, which was brought in by the Labour Government, is an outstanding initiative and is starting to achieve the objectives set for it as the years pass by. It has been rolled out to large businesses and is well on its way into the small business sector. That is clearly good news, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge. I appreciate that neither she nor other Committee members are partisan on that matter. However, not all employees will be auto-enrolled until February 2018, and the increase in minimum contributions to 8% will not be completed until April 2019. Drop-out is relatively low among younger people. We do not want anything in the meantime to jeopardise the maximum possible number of people enrolling, or to provide an incentive to opt out; that is not an unreasonable position to take.
Auto-enrolment is one of the few success stories in the pension landscape, and is widely acknowledged in all sectors to be right. I fear that the Government’s policy—intentionally or not; I do not point the finger—may put the wider landscape in jeopardy and be a dangerous path, and the history of pensions suggests that that will be recognised only in years to come. By that time, it will be too late to turn back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles highlighted on Second Reading, the OBR agrees with that assessment, and has reported that the Government’s pensions and savings policies have
“shifted incentives in a way that makes pensions saving less attractive—particularly for higher earners—and non-pension savings more attractive—often in ways that can most readily be taken up by the same higher earners.”
The Minister may respond that this is not an either/or situation, but of course she would say that. I respectfully suggest that that demonstrates a potential lack of appreciation that many people out there cannot afford to pay into both a pension and a LISA. In fact, many can do neither. The Work and Pensions Committee has warned the Government that
“Opting out of AE to save for retirement in a LISA will leave people worse off. Government messages on this issue have been mixed. While the DWP has been very clear that the LISA is not a pension product, the Treasury has proffered an alternative view.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Work and Pensions Committee. That simply affirms that there is confusion over the matter. At the very least, that is the perception abroad, and as some people say, perception is reality. If we have learned one thing over the years, it is that confusion in the market simply puts people off.
Moreover, we heard in evidence from Ms Lowe of the Women’s Budget Group that making a LISA
“available to everyone does not make it gender-neutral”—[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 51, Q96.]
She said that account had to be taken of people’s capacity to access the LISA, and in that regard, many women would be left out. That is a salutary observation.
Although Mr Bennie from Scottish Friendly supported the LISA, he recognised that people’s experience of pensions was sometime bad, which could be a problem for take up. In response to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, he said that he recognised that for some, given their experience, pensions are a broken product. He also indicated that he saw LISAs as being complementary to a main pension, as did Ms Knight of the Tax Incentivised Saving Association, hence the Opposition’s caution about pushing on with this product without appropriate review.
It is fair to say that messing about with the pension system over the years has left people sceptical and blaming politicians for the mess. I worry that that we will be seen as messing about again, even with the best intentions. Our proposals today are a form of inoculation against the problem. The Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign is an example of a pension issue, albeit a public pension one, coming back to haunt us—or rather, it is the women concerned who are coming back to haunt us. That has shown the scepticism about pensions in general.
The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the Government conduct urgent research into any effect of LISA on pension savings through auto-enrolment. That is another sensible bipartisan approach to the issue, which, political banter apart, is worthy of consideration by the Government. After all, the wisdom of Conservative Members on that Committee—and on this Committee—is always welcome on these matters.
Our new clause 1 would require the Government to carry out the review every year after the passing of this Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the new clause, or at least take it away for consideration.
The purpose of new clause 2 is to ensure that those opening a lifetime ISA for retirement savings receive independent financial advice. Advice is a crucial in purchasing any expensive product, be it a car, house, university education, or holiday. The advice would be offered automatically through an opt-in service, and the service provider would sign a declaration outlining the advice that the applicant received. Any provider would have to confirm the status of the applicant, whether they were enrolled in a workplace pension scheme, whether they had signed a declaration of financial advice, and whether they plan to use the lifetime ISA for a first-time residential purchase. The Opposition believe that it is only right that anyone considering a lifetime ISA is given the opportunity to see its benefits, compared with those of other schemes on the market.
The new clause would: ensure that people make an informed choice, with the benefit of independent financial advice; create parity in the quality of advice for all those entering the scheme; and offer much-needed oversight and education about the benefits of the scheme. The purchase of a pension is perhaps one of the most important purchases a person makes. That issue has exercised the minds of many people in Government, the regulatory sector and the product sector. The history of mis-selling has left a long, deep shadow across the financial product sector, and we must take that into account. It is fair to say that all witnesses made this point, either directly or indirectly.
There was more consensus among the witnesses on the issue of complexity than a first assessment would suggest. Hon. Members may recall me asking Mr McPhail of Hargreaves Lansdown about his assertion that the LISA was a misguided policy. His response was that the product was not complicated—the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made to Mr Lewis—but that the pension landscape was complex. Mr McPhail said:
“The product itself is reasonably simple…but you have dropped it…into a complicated landscape.”—[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 20, Q40.]
I repeat that he never said that the product was complicated. The assertion from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that
“this morning we heard from some of the representatives from the financial services industry, who seemed to think that this was a complex product”
was seized on by Mr Lewis, who called that view “palpable balderdash”. However, Mr McPhail did not say that. What Mr Lewis said, which is more than reasonable, is that people need to understand what they are buying. He said of LISA:
“All products are complicated; all products can be explained…They have to be explained and they have to be communicated. They will take time.”
That reinforces the reason for supporting the new clause, and the need for independent robust advice, which, as Mr Lewis advised, should be given in
“nice, easy and real terminology and not jargon”.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading those passages. I was also struck by Mr Lewis’s comment that
“When you contrast these products with the state pension, they are pretty easy products to understand.”
Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that section of Mr Lewis’s assessment?
Peter Dowd
Yes, I am happy to. The point that we were discussing was that while the products may or may not be complicated, the environment and landscape in which they are being sold is complicated, as there are all sorts of other financial products out there. That was the issue.
The primary point is that if people are to make a decision about something so important in their lives, and especially a pension, they need as much simple advice as they can get, with
“nice, easy and real terminology and not jargon”.
Huw Merriman
It may seem a strange analogy, but there are lots of laws passed by this House that could be quite complicated; that does not stop us passing more laws that may help people, though. I find the defeatist attitude somewhat baffling.
Peter Dowd
I genuinely do not think that ours is a defeatist attitude. The responsibility of this House when we pass complicated laws, which we do all the time, is to make clear what they mean. I would rather we spent more time in here dealing with these matters, teasing and winkling out the issues, and being clear about what we mean. I would rather spend 10 hours in here dealing with an issue and sorting it out than one hour in here and 10 hours out there trying to unravel it.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle in his previous comments. In the Hansard of the witness hearings, Martin Lewis is very clear:
“The argument that they are too complicated is just a complete load of palpable balderdash.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 56-7, Q100.]
Those are not my words but his. He went on to say that there might be sections of the industry that think that they have products that could compete with those in the Bill, but if there is a product that is right, we should be getting on with introducing it.
Peter Dowd
There is a danger of an “angels dancing on a pinhead” argument here. Mr Lewis said that an assertion had been made—an assertion attributed to Mr McPhail—that this was a complicated product, and that has clouded the issue. I am trying to get clarity that that was not what was said. It is not the product per se that is complicated; it is the landscape in which it is delivered. There are so many products that people may get confused, depending on how much information and simple terminology they are provided with. All I am trying to do is pin this issue down.
If, having been auto-enrolled in a pension, someone opts out of it to go into a LISA, it is important that they have all the boxes ticked and understand exactly what they are doing. I say that only because of the point I made earlier. There have been so many scams and so much mis-selling in the past that when we introduce a product that some see, rightly or wrongly, as being in direct competition with a pension, we must ensure that people make their decision in full knowledge. We are trying to tie independent financial advice into the legislation. The Government may or may not accept that; that is a matter for them. I am trying to put the idea into the mix and get discussion on it.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying and support the new clauses. We have had a recent history of appalling mis-selling, with billions having to be paid back to people who were mis-sold savings instruments and schemes over the years. Even though this scheme may be simple in itself, it could have serious knock-on effects on other parts of the industry. He is right in what he has been saying.
Peter Dowd
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that in. I reaffirm the point: we have a responsibility and duty to ensure that we nail this issue down. The last thing any of us wants is, in three, four, five or six years’ time, to have to unravel and unpick a problem we could have avoided in the first place. That is our intention. The new clause is not a spoiler; it is a genuine attempt to get the issue into the open.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Should we not reflect on what experts in the industry have said? Zurich said there is a danger that the LISA
“would derail auto-enrolment and reverse”
the progress made
“in encouraging…people to save”
for later life. We heard evidence on Tuesday that nobody would be better off coming out of auto-enrolment and investing in a LISA.
Specifically on mis-selling, do we not run the risk of ending up with financial institutions marketing the LISA in a way that is to its detriment? I cannot put it any other way: that is creating the circumstances for mis-selling, and having shaped the Bill in this way, the Government are responsible for that.
Peter Dowd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That reinforces the concern out there. If his point was completely off the wall, I would say so, but it is not. Millions of people out there have completely lost confidence in much of the sector. That is partly why, as was alluded to by the witnesses, if people are saving, they are often doing so in cash ISAs—because they are not sure about stocks and shares and other things. They therefore put their savings in products that give them a return of 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, or 1% if they are lucky. We must create an environment in which people save and feel confident that they will get a reasonable return on their investment, especially if that investment is for their later years. That is perfectly reasonable.
This is not a question of protecting people from themselves. We are saying, “If you want to buy a product, look it over, and we will set up mechanisms to enable that to happen.” In a sense, it is for the Government to decide whether they believe that what they are doing is enough.
The Work and Pensions Committee said:
“We recommend the Government develop a communications campaign that highlights the differences between the LISA and workplace pensions. It should make it clear that the LISA is not a pension and that, for employees who have been automatically enrolled, any decision to opt-out is likely to result in a worse outcome for their retirement.”
It is not just the Labour party, the Scottish Nationalists or anyone else saying that; a bipartisan Committee that includes Government Members is saying it. That is why I said that there is a little wisdom there that we should tap into.
Opposition Members are concerned that the Government are not doing enough to ensure that people who are considering opening a LISA are fully aware of all the pensions savings options available to them. New clause 2 would require the Government to legislate to ensure that all applicants for a lifetime ISA had to prove that they had received independent financial advice if they intended to use the ISA for retirement savings. If they had not received such advice, the provider of the lifetime ISA would have to direct them to independent financial advice.
With so many bodies from across numerous industries outlining concerns that there is a risk that people will save into a lifetime ISA when it is not the most beneficial retirement savings option, I cannot see a reasonable argument against ensuring that applicants receive independent financial advice before opening an account. To paraphrase Mr Lewis, it seems palpably sensible to take that approach. I hope that the Government give careful consideration to our proposal and take on board the concerns that not only I but many people have expressed.
Ian Blackford
The Scottish National party welcomes the attempts by Peter Dowd, the hon. Member for Bootle, to ask the UK Government—
The Chair
Order. You refer to hon. Members not by their name but by their constituency. He is the hon. Member for Bootle.
Ian Blackford
Indeed. The hon. Member for Bootle is right to ask the UK Government to keep a watchful eye on the impact of automatic enrolment. However, that does not go far enough. The LISA must be paused. It is a gimmick that has not been thought through. The impact assessment states:
“The government could have done nothing more, relying on existing tax incentives to promote saving among younger people and working families on low incomes. However, this would have failed to provide the necessary level of support for those who are unable to use existing support to plan and save for their future.”
What a dismal statement. Where is the vision? Where is the hope? Where is the idea of a Government who can architect a pensions savings system that encourages young people to save? Should we not bring forward next year’s review of auto-enrolment and make sure that we have the tax incentives and the structure right? That is what we should be doing, not introducing this hopeless gimmick that risks mis-selling to young people in this country. This Government stand charged with creating circumstances that could lead to mis-selling through this product. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
The SNP has tabled amendments that ask for the LISA to be halted until workplace savings are enhanced through automatic enrolment, which is the right way to proceed. Stakeholders have picked apart the UK Government’s main arguments for the LISA, including that it will be good for self-employed individuals who are left out of automatic enrolment. The British Bankers Association said that
“two thirds of the self-employed are already ineligible for the lifetime ISA.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 18, Q34.]
One of the Government’s major arguments has been shown to be fatally flawed. Why do we not reform auto-enrolment to make sure that the self-employed are included? That is the right way to progress.
At present, as a savings model, the LISA only supports the wealthy—those with the ability to save. New clause 2 is a welcome move to promote financial advice. We welcome this amendment. However, an SNP new clause that will be tabled ahead of the next stage will go further and explicitly demand that the advice extends to workplace savings and automatic enrolment and targets young people. We encourage Labour colleagues, and indeed the Government, to join us in supporting that new clause.
In its oral evidence to the Committee, the Association of British Insurers raised concerns about the communication of the difference between automatic enrolment and the LISA. There is a real concern that individuals could switch out of automatic enrolment and into LISA, and that
“they could lose up to a third once they get to the age of 60.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 5, Q1.]
The ABI also said that
“there needs to be a strong signpost towards the guidance services.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 9, Q14.]
Individuals who choose to invest in a LISA, rather than investing through automatic enrolment, could lose a third of their retirement benefits.
Carol Knight of the Tax Incentivised Savings Association said:
“We should be looking at retirement saving as a whole and helping people to put different types of assets towards funding later life.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 14, Q26.]
It is clear that stakeholders are concerned about the confusion that may arrive for savers with the introduction of the LISA. When he gave evidence to the Committee, Tom McPhail from Hargreaves Lansdown said forcefully:
“We are in danger of sending ISAs down the same road as pensions, making them more and more complicated.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 15, Q29.]
He advised of savers that it is
“really important that we support them with good information”.––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 16, Q31.]
As well as the potential distractions from auto-enrolment pension schemes, the LISA represents a major missed opportunity to increase the attractiveness of auto-enrolment. In a submission to the Work and Pensions Committee, the union Prospect argues:
“If Government wants to subsidise younger workers saving towards a deposit on a first home it could just as easily do so through changing the rules relating to the taxation of pension schemes as through introducing the Lifetime ISA. Such an approach would greatly increase the attractiveness of automatic enrolment pension schemes.”
The submission goes on to say:
“Anecdotally, Prospect members who opt out of automatic enrolment pension schemes sometimes report they do so in order to be able to save towards a deposit for a first home. Research shows a majority of young people would be more inclined to save into a pension scheme or would save more if they could use their pension pot to fund a deposit for a first home.”
Prospect also points out:
“In New Zealand the rules of the Kiwisaver allow the withdrawal of savings to purchase a first home”,
and research from the Pensions Policy Institute shows that early access and borrowing against funds for the purpose of home purchases are permitted in other countries.
David Wren of the BBA pointed out that the LISA will be the sixth type of ISA on the market. He said:
“The hybrid nature of the product—between saving for a house and saving long term for retirement—also adds considerable complexity for people who are choosing where to save and what to do.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 17, Q32.]
He also noted that
“complexity is definitely the enemy of success in getting people to save.”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 20, Q39.]
That is why robust financial advice that takes account of an individual’s other savings and pension pots is essential. We do not accept that no alternatives to the LISA were considered—the impact assessment for the Bill spells that out clearly. The Government must look at other options. Surely the delay that we are calling for would give the space for a pause.
Since its introduction in 2012, auto-enrolment has been a success, with more than 6.7 million workers successfully enrolled by September 2016 and lower opt-out rates and higher employer compliance than was initially expected. That success has been built on the back of a broad political consensus and thorough planning ahead of its introduction. As the National Audit Office report on auto-enrolment pointed out, the policy faces greater operational risk as it is rolled out to small employers. The phasing in of increases to minimum contribution levels also presents challenges. A separate NAO report identified a potential risk if individual interventions
“are managed separately without adequate consideration of their impact on the overall objective of increasing retirement incomes.”
That warning could hardly fit the circumstances of the introduction of the LISA any better.
The Government’s main priority should be to build on the success of auto-enrolment to date and deal with the upcoming challenges that have been identified. That work should include strategies for addressing issues with ineligibility for auto-enrolment and for increasing contributions under auto-enrolment. That is particularly important for workers aged under 40, because most will be worse off in retirement as a result of the introduction of the new state pension. Prospect also said that
“the Government is in danger of losing focus on what should be its priority with the introduction of the Lifetime ISA.”
Kelvin Hopkins
I rise to support new clauses 1 and 2, along with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and much of what was said by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. It would be sensible of the Government to accept the new clauses. They are practical and logical, and it is perfectly reasonable that we want a review of the effect of the LISA on auto-enrolment and pensions savings and that anybody choosing to buy a LISA is given proper advice. None of that would undermine the Government’s legislation; it would actually improve it considerably and give the necessary protections.
I have considerable doubts about the wisdom of going ahead with lifetime ISAs. The whole pensions and savings world has been far too complicated for far too long. Some 25 or 30 years ago, I reached the age at which I had sufficient income to start to save so that I would have extra income in my later years—I must say that I am now benefiting from that, in spite of having a very generous parliamentary pension as well. At that time it was extremely complicated. There were tax-exempt special savings accounts, personal equity plans, ISAs, national savings certificates and all sorts of tax-free savings instruments, but interestingly they were all perfectly acceptable for people on higher rate tax like me. I have always been concerned about that.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the LISA’s major flaws is that the only people who will be able take full advantage of it are people who have a spare £20,000 a year to save? That is an attractive tax break for very wealthy people.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. During the era of TESSAs, PEPs, ISAs and national savings certificates, the wealthy, if they were wise, would have bought all of them for themselves, their partners and their children—anyone within the family for whom they could buy them—every year. They would build up a massive portfolio of tax-free savings over the years and be extremely well off in old age, especially if the savings in those four schemes would otherwise have been taxed at the higher rate. Instead of incentivising poor people to save, the schemes were actually tax-free bunce for the wealthy. I had some TESSAs, PEPs and ISAs, and I still have some national savings certificates today, so I am sitting pretty, but I am comfortably off. I am more concerned about people who are poor, and I am certainly not poor. I am not wealthy, but I am not poor. Mr Davies made the point well.
That is a frontal assault on such instruments, but the concern about damaging auto-enrolment is also serious. I strongly support auto-enrolment, which has been a great success so far. I wanted to go much further, and I have said in the Commons on more than one occasion that I believe we should have a compulsory universal earnings-related savings system for everyone, including the self-employed, so that we all make sure that we save for our old age. I do not stand back from that proposal, which I intend to continue advocating as a step beyond auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment is a major step forward, but it is still not a defined-benefit scheme and it is still subject to stock market fluctuations, whereas a state system could have guaranteed defined benefits.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about self-employed people. We heard in the evidence sessions that LISAs would help a significant element of the self-employed. The Government are carrying out a review of how auto-enrolment could support the self-employed in future. Does he think it is important to think about not just nirvana and what might be, but how we can tangibly help people now? This product will make a difference to a big section of the self-employed.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a serious problem for the self-employed. There is a lot of bogus self-employment, with employers forcing their employees into self-employment. If we counted only genuine self-employment, there would be far fewer self-employed people. We could then make sure that people are paying into the system through taxes and national insurance contributions. They could also be enrolled in a compulsory state system of earnings-related savings. I agree that there is a problem with the self-employed and I am glad that the Government are reviewing the problem, but we have to go far further into that than we are discussing today.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said is sensible, practical and reasonable. The Government should just accept his argument and say, “Of course, we want a review of the impact on the automatic enrolment and pension savings and we want to have proper advice for people applying for lifetime ISAs.”
When I was investing in my middle years—rather than my later years, as I am now—people gave me advice. People came to my door and talked about their savings schemes. I did not understand what they were talking about, even though I used to teach statistics and am mathematically qualified and could understand logic. It became clear to me that the people coming to my door did not understand the instruments either. They were selling something because they had been told to sell and they were on commission: “Just sell it, get the signature on the bit of paper, come away and we will give you 5%.” When they did not understand, I thought it was even more terrifying. No wonder we had mis-selling on a gigantic sale. Billions are now having to be paid back, and no doubt billions have been lost for ever and will never be paid back because many people died before compensation was thought about.
We have a problem. We have to make things automatic, simpler, with a state-managed system involved. We also need to ensure that, if there is any kind of subsidy for pensions in old age, it should go to the poor and not to the better-off like me. The gulf between rich and poor in our country has widened. We have a serious problem of poverty in old age and we have to deal with that through the state. I hope to persuade my own party to adopt a policy of that kind, as and when we become the next Government.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
It is a pleasure to be here with you and the Committee, Mr Chope. I thank everybody for their attention at the very good witness sessions on Tuesday, when we heard from some very interesting people who were good enough to give up their time to come and inform our deliberations.
I will say a general word around lifetime ISAs when speaking to clause 1 and will come on to new clause 2. However, I should say first that there is much about the spirit of the new clauses and amendments proposed with which I agree, as I think we all would. When I come to speak on them, it will be to demonstrate that they are unnecessary or would not work as intended. I do understand the spirit in which they are tabled. I also note, as we all have, that there are areas of significant consensus across the Committee, particularly around auto-enrolment, the success it has been and the wish to see it go from strength to strength.
I will come to that in a moment, but I will first introduce the broader product. We believe the lifetime ISA is a positive addition to the savings landscape. That was a view substantiated by a number of the experts we heard from on Tuesday. It will support younger people to save for a first home and to supplement their long-term savings by topping up individual contributions with a generous 25% Government bonus of up to £1,000 a year.
In 2015, the Government held a full consultation on pension tax relief, which is the background to how we came to the lifetime ISA. The outcome was clear: there was at that time no consensus for fundamental reform to the pension tax system. In some ways, some of the comments that we have heard in speeches this morning reflect the fact that there is still a desire among some people for a fundamental redrawing of the landscape, but the reality is that that is a debate for another time and place. We are in Committee to deal with this Bill, but I acknowledge that that other debate is ongoing.
Throughout the course of the consultation, young people indicated that they wanted more ways to save flexibly for the future. At Budget 2016, therefore, the Government announced the introduction of the lifetime ISA, which has been welcomed by insurers, ISA providers and other industry experts, as we heard on Tuesday. Although some people had some concerns, I think it is fair to say that there was a broad degree of welcome from people across the sector. They see the lifetime ISA as a valuable new vehicle to help young people save.
Ian Blackford
Does not the Minister accept that all the generous bonus will do, in effect, is compensate those who have gone into the LISA for the fact that, in contrast to a pension where people are putting pre-tax income in, the money is coming out of post-tax income, so on a zero-sum basis it comes out more or less the same? Anyone going into a pension can expect to get employer contributions, so anyone saving in a pension will be better off. For the life of me, I cannot understand, given the cross-party consensus about supporting and strengthening auto-enrolment, why on earth she wants to muddy the water so that people might be seduced into this product when they should be investing in a pension.
Jane Ellison
This perhaps goes to the nub of the disagreement we have in Committee: the Government do not see it as an either/or. The hon. Gentleman is very much positing the product versus pensions as an either/or, but we have been quite clear that the lifetime ISA is a complement, and we heard that from witnesses. I also think that, while acknowledging the consensus to protect auto-enrolment, and indeed to encourage people to save with the pension products appropriate for them, to jump from that to the assumption that the lifetime ISA is, by its nature, going to undermine everything else is a jump too far. I would reject some of his language. Later, I will come on to some points to support my assertion.
The clause itself sets out the defining characteristic of the lifetime ISA: a Government bonus will be paid by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs where a qualifying addition is made to a lifetime ISA in a relevant period. “Lifetime ISA”, “qualifying addition” and “relevant period” will be defined in regulations, which will also provide that the Government bonus will be 25% of all qualifying additions made to the account. I confirm that those new regulations will be brought to the House for debate ahead of the launch of the new account in April 2017. Further detail on the lifetime ISA is set out in schedule 1.
New clause 1 seeks to place a requirement on the Government to conduct an annual review of whether the lifetime ISA has had any impact on workplace pensions, and in particular automatic enrolment, as we heard from the shadow Minister. The Government are absolutely committed to automatic enrolment, which will help 10 million people to newly save or to save more into pensions by 2018.
The lifetime ISA is designed to be a complement to automatic enrolment and workplace pensions, not a replacement. We are clear about that language, and we will continue to be. The aim of the lifetime ISA is to support younger people to purchase a first home and to supplement their long-term savings, not to choose between the two. The reality is that some of the youngest people who take out this product will be able to take the money out at 60, but that will not be their retirement age. We are talking about people saving for a later phase of their life, perhaps the last phase of their working life, or to do something in their later years that they always wished to do but did not have the chance to do when they were younger.
The Government’s different policies on employer contributions to a pension and a lifetime ISA reflect all that, which goes to the point made in an intervention. Employers have a statutory obligation to contribute towards pensions under automatic enrolment. They also have a direct incentive to do so through relief on national insurance contributions. The cost of that to the Exchequer was £13.8 billion in 2014-15, which is a powerful demonstration of the Government’s commitment to retain strong incentives in the system. Neither is the case with the lifetime ISA.
We have already conducted an impact assessment, published alongside the Bill, and we clearly do not expect that people will opt out of their workplace pension in order to pay into a lifetime ISA instead. The help to buy ISA already provides a 25% bonus to support people to purchase a first home, but the launch of that did not lead to a surge in opt-outs. I accept that it is a slightly different product, with a different timescale. Nevertheless, there is real-world evidence that it did not lead to that.
Ian Blackford
I agree with the Minister about us all being satisfied by the opt-out rate being lower than anticipated. The real challenge will come in the next few years, as rates going into the auto-enrolment scheme increase. That is why it is important we keep the primary focus on auto-enrolment, to ensure that as contribution levels increase, we do not inadvertently see an increase in the opt-out rate, with people perhaps switching to the LISA.
Jane Ellison
I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s broad point. He assumes the worst will happen, whereas I have good evidence to show that that is not a reasonable assumption. I will go on to show that we are keeping these things under constant review across the broad piece of pensions and savings.
The lifetime ISA, like all Government policies, will be kept under review to ensure that it is meeting its objectives. We already publish a wide range of details about the take-up of Government-supported savings accounts such as ISAs, and we intend to take a similar approach with the lifetime ISA. Similarly, national statistics and other information such as the Office for National Statistics wealth and assets survey set out information on the savings held across a range of different household types. It is quite granular information.
As the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said earlier, we have a legislative commitment to review certain aspects of auto-enrolment in 2017. In addition, we have the discretion to conduct wider review activity. We recognise that broader challenges and questions have been raised by stakeholders in connection with the review—for example, questions of inclusion and adequacy. It is important we look at the scope and the right sequencing of review activity. The Government are currently scoping the review and hope to update further on that by the end of the year. Of course, the debate we are having in this Committee will inform those deliberations. Because of that, we consider publishing an additional review of the scheme’s operation to be unnecessary in terms of its interaction with the product we are discussing in this clause. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bootle not to press new clause 1.
New clause 2 seeks that the Government provide in regulations that independent financial advice is made available to all customers making an application for a lifetime ISA. I think we all agree with the thrust of the debate on the new clause. We have all seen victims of mis-selling and want to ensure that our constituents go into every financial decision with the best information available. The Government want people to have the information they need to make important financial decisions and we will achieve that by providing clear factual information on gov.uk, as well as working with the Money Advice Service and its successor to ensure they make appropriate and impartial information available.
New clause 2 would require all individuals to take out financial advice before they open a lifetime ISA. I want to demonstrate that that is not practical, however well intentioned it is. Financial advice is relatively expensive. The point has been made that we do not want to disadvantage younger people and basic rate taxpayers who want to take advantage of this product. Our impact assessment and all the work that we have done indicate that the vast majority of people who take up the product will be basic rate taxpayers.
Research carried out by Unbiased shows that the average cost of financial advice for customers is £150 per hour and the average advice process takes around eight hours. That totals £1,200. Even if we assume that that is the upper end of estimates, it is still £200 more than the maximum annual bonus that an individual could receive from the lifetime ISA. That would create a significant barrier to all but the wealthiest individuals opening a lifetime ISA, and I know that that is the opposite of the Opposition’s intent.
Kelvin Hopkins
If there was a simple state office where people could obtain such advice from an objective, publicly employed adviser rather than a private financial adviser, would that not be an efficient and relatively cheap way of providing good, reliable advice?
Jane Ellison
I think we would all agree on the broad point about wanting people to have access to financial advice whatever their income, but we are dealing with this Bill. The Government will consult and take soundings on the successor to the Money Advice Service and the other advice services that will be brought together, and I am sure that we will have a good debate about that in due course. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contribute those broader thoughts to that debate.
Let me turn to the current regulatory framework around the LISA. It is worth saying that it is not the Government’s role to set that regulatory framework. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about the different regulatory landscape at the time when he was being sold products—not particularly well, apparently. We are all thankful that that landscape has changed greatly since those days, and rightly so, but it is the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority to regulate the providers of ISAs, and it will likewise set the appropriate framework for the lifetime ISA.
The FCA will consult on the regulatory regime for the lifetime ISA throughout the autumn and will, as is its ordinary remit, ensure that providers are transparent to customers about the products that they are offering and those products are sold with suitable safeguards in place. We heard in some of the evidence sessions on Tuesday about how the industry wants to get advice right. Everyone has been scarred by what has happened in years past. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, we will consult later this year on the scope of the new financial guidance body, as a complement to the industry’s advice. We heard people such as Martin Lewis talk about the common-sense advice that people need to hear, and that is also an important part of the landscape from which people can seek guidance. I am sure that Martin Lewis and others will contribute to the debate about the new advice services.
I reassure the hon. Member for Bootle that information about the lifetime ISA will be available so that potential customers can make informed choices about which financial products to use. We want people to understand what the right choices are for them, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to require advice to be provided, as that would create a significant financial barrier to individuals accessing the lifetime ISA. It is the independent FCA’s role, not the Government’s, to set the regulatory framework for ISAs. For those reasons—not because I disagree with the spirit of his new clause but because I do not think it would work in practice—I encourage him to withdraw new clause 2.
I conclude my remarks about clause 1 by saying that the lifetime ISA will benefit many young people by supporting them to save flexibly for the long term. It is designed to complement the pension system, not replace it. The clause makes provision for the fundamental feature of the lifetime ISA: the Government bonus. We think that is a positive product for young people, and we do not want them to lose out on, for example, a year’s worth of saving and the compound interest on that because of the delay that has been called for. I therefore ask Committee members to support clause 1.
Peter Dowd
I welcome some of the Minister’s comments on both new clauses, and the spirit in which she made them. In the spirit of trying to move on, we will not push new clause 1 to a Division. We acknowledge that the Minister has said that there will be reviews of some fashion, though maybe not statutory reviews; we will take that away and consider it, and may come back to the question of reviews. Our concerns in relation to auto-enrolment can be appreciated. It has been a good product, to use the jargon, and we do not want to lose that. However, again, in the spirit of moving on, we will pull away from the new clause.
We will push new clause 2, on independent financial advice, to a vote, because this House has to lay down a marker when it comes to people’s future and making a significant investment in a product. The lifetime ISA is a significant investment, whatever way we look it. Importantly, it is also a significant investment by taxpayers; that has to be taken into account. If somebody wants a lifetime ISA, and rightly understands that the Government will put a lump sum towards it, it is not unreasonable for us to say that we expect that person to take independent financial advice.
Kelvin Hopkins
I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says, but is it not important to have that commitment in the Bill, rather than just rely on the apparent sympathy of the Government?
Peter Dowd
It is, and that is why I am trying to push that message home. To some extent, we need to draw a line in the sand.
Jane Ellison
Given that some of the debate on new clause 2 has been about the concern that the product would be insufficiently attractive to people on lower pay, the practical nature—not the spirit—of what the hon. Gentleman proposes would essentially be regressive, and make the product less attractive to those on lower incomes, whom we wish to attract.
Peter Dowd
I completely understand that. The Bill is full of principles: we want people to save and to have pensions, to have the Government cough up towards that, and the individual to put money in personally. There is a whole series of things that we say must be part of the process in principle. For us, there is also the principle at stake of seeking independent financial advice. That is not unreasonable.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about independent financial advice. The Minister also made an important point about the cost of that advice. From the evidence we heard, it came across strongly to me that for most people on moderate incomes, this product is a lot less advantageous than putting the money into a pension and attracting employers’ contributions. That is why independent advice is so important, and why this product is not very attractive for anybody on a normal salary.
Peter Dowd
That is a reasonable point to make. The question is: what is the reasonableness of the argument? The Minister, again perfectly reasonably, makes her point. I do not necessarily accept the figures that she gave, but I take at face value the point that she makes. On balance, people have found that not taking independent advice on such matters was a little costly in the short term, but in the long term, if they did not get the right advice, it was even more costly. That bill has to be picked up by someone, and we are not talking about a few pounds—we are talking about people’s lives in the future, and it is difficult to put a price on that. We recognise the points that the Minister made, and the spirit in which she made them, but as a matter of principle, we want to press new clause 2 to a Division, just to get it into the mix.
The Chair
May I explain the procedure? We will not vote on new clauses yet. We will vote on them after we have finished discussing the amendments and the rest of the Bill. At that stage, it will be open to anyone to press new clause 1 to a vote, if they want to, and then we can have a Division on it, if that is the will of the Committee, and similarly for new clause 2. I have made a note that the hon. Member for Bootle wishes to press new clause 2 to a Division at the appropriate time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Lifetime ISAs: further provision
Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—First-time residential purchase: Research and impact assessment—
‘(1) Within one year of this Act coming into force the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the potential impact of provisions within paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 1 on house prices in the UK.
(2) The findings of the review must be made publicly available and laid before each House of Parliament.’
Peter Dowd
New clause 3 would require the Government to conduct a review within a year of the Act coming into force of the potential impact of the lifetime ISA on house prices in the United Kingdom. The review must be made publicly available and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Opposition recognise that many people want to own their own home. However, we are concerned that the Government’s housing policy will only inflate house prices further. We have concerns that the LISA will make things even more difficult in a housing environment that is already strained because of the limited number of houses being built nationwide, not to mention the huge cost of housing, particularly in London and the south-east; the average figure is £250,000.
Evidence to the Committee on Tuesday was cautionary. Martin Lewis from MoneySavingExpert.com, while acknowledging the potential popularity of the LISA, flagged up its potential impact on the housing market. He highlighted that
“Unintended consequences are possible—the lifetime ISA might pump the housing market, which is a concern”.––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 50, Q95.]
The Institute for Fiscal Studies, referring to the Office for Budget Responsibility, made a similar point.
I do not want to over-emphasise the point, but it is worth noting—and perhaps assessing, as suggested in the new clause—the effect of the LISA on house prices overall. It is worrying that fewer homes were built in the last Parliament than under any previous peacetime Government since the 1920s. LISA may help—if that is the right word—to overheat a market that is already short of capacity. The Government’s priority should be to try to mitigate that, not to add to the problem. I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.
The fact is that people are increasingly chasing a product in a market that has low supply levels. It so happens that the product is a house. The facts speak for themselves. Since I sat on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee around this time last year—it may well have been in this very room—the housing market has remained pretty tight, with supply remaining low. The national planning policy framework, which the Government were warned would create confusion, has done so. That all adds to the broth and is creating problems. By now, according to the plan, and the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), there have should been a better housing supply. Alas, he was wrong.
The lifetime ISA, which will in effect replace the help to buy ISA in due course, provides a Government bonus that can be used towards a deposit on a house—if one can be found. If I remember correctly, concern was expressed by a witness that the help to buy ISA had been poorly articulated, and that the current one was potentially being poorly articulated as well. There was the impression that an ISA could be used for a deposit. Of course, there was a smorgasbord of consternation, anger, disappointment, frustration and bewilderment when many young people found that that was not the case. The problem is that if people are encouraged to borrow money for a house in a tight market, the more house prices rises, the bigger mortgages they need, and so on. The fact that the Government are helping to do that is not helpful. The problem is exacerbated. When the growth of mortgage lending outpaces the supply of housing, prices just keep rising and rising, making it increasingly difficult for people to access the housing market at a reasonable rate. There is no doubt about that.
The Government have identified the right problem but are coming up with the wrong solution. We need to build more houses. That is the only way to solve the housing crisis. New products are fine, as far as they go. Lots of people welcome the LISA—I cannot argue against that—and many people do not, but the comprehensive solution is to deal with the continuing housing supply problem. It is worth noting that the house shortage is simply a physical manifestation of the shortage of skills in the construction sector in general and the housing market in particular.
The Government are almost two years through their five-year housing plan, not counting the previous five years, and we are still falling badly behind on targets. The question is whether the proposals really deal with the substantive issue of supply, and the answer is no. In that context, it is important to look at whether this policy will have an impact on house prices. If it will, in addition to there being a lack of action on housing policy in general, that is a concern. It is legitimate to ask the Government to review the impact on the housing market of this product.
Kelvin Hopkins
I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause. Many of us have long been concerned about the massive rise in house prices. I will give a simple example. When I bought my first house in Luton in 1969, house prices were three times average earnings. Now in Luton, they are 12 times average earnings.
Millions of people are seeing the possibility of home ownership disappearing. Owner-occupation is in decline; it is becoming a smaller sector, and we are seeing an opening up of major social divisions between owner-occupiers and renters. For owner-occupiers, equity will cascade down the generations, and their children and grandchildren will stay in the owner-occupied sector because they will inherit the equity. Those who are not in the sector and do not have sufficient income will remain outside the sector, as will successive generations after them—unless they win the lottery or become extremely wealthy for some other reason, but that will apply to only a small number. The great majority of people will find it very difficult to become owner-occupiers if they do not have equity handed down by their forebears.
Adding extra cash to help people who are already likely to be in a position to buy their own home will simply increase house prices further and take home ownership even further away from those who do not have equity and are unlikely to be able to afford a home. We have to see some action by Government over time at least to stabilise house prices, so that more people can get into owner-occupation, and so that those who aspire to be a homeowner have a realistic prospect of becoming one.
I support what my hon. Friend said. We have to build many more houses. The only way to stabilise house prices is to raise supply, not increase demand, which would just push house prices up. It is not the price of houses that is increasing, but the price of the land on which they are built. The cost of building a house does not increase by that amount; it is the land on which it is built. There is a case for land value taxation and doing something about the price of land.
It is a mad world. In 1969, I thought becoming an owner-occupier was a bit of an adventure, but I could afford it on one income—mine, which was not massively high, because I was a trade union research officer. Nevertheless, I could afford to buy a three-bedroom house with a garage and gardens back and front—a nice, typically British home, which we might all aspire to. If I were trying to buy the same house now, with the same sort of income, in the same town, I would have great difficulty. On my generous parliamentary salary, I might stand a better chance, but not on the salary that I had at the time, so I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle is absolutely right, and I support his new clause 3.
Jane Ellison
The Committee is enjoying the autobiographical journey to Luton North through the ages.
Kelvin Hopkins
I used to be a teacher—I taught economics years ago—and I always found that using examples kept the class alive and entertained them. It also helped them to understand the points that I was making.
Jane Ellison
To that end, he has succeeded magnificently; everyone looks thoroughly engaged, which is not always the case in Bill Committees, it is fair to say.
Before I speak about schedule 1 and new clause 3, I have a couple of points to make. I do not intend to go into a wide discussion about house building. We all agree that we need to build more houses. Earlier this month, the Government unveiled a £5 billion package at the Conservative conference, which will make substantial progress and build on the progress already made.
The help to buy ISA is often unfairly criticised. In a way, those myths then transfer across to criticism of the lifetime ISA, so it is worth putting on the record that the take-up of the help to buy ISA has been high; there have been more than 650,000 of them to date. Where people have used help to buy to buy a home, that home has been worth on average £167,250, which is well below the scheme’s property price cap of £250,000, or £450,000 in London. That underlines the fact that we expect the majority of those who use the lifetime ISA to be basic rate taxpayers.
I will turn to schedule 1 and then make a point or two about new clause 3, because I hope to show the shadow Minister that I can respond to his substantive concern. The schedule sets out some of the detailed rules of the lifetime ISA. It is a long schedule, so I propose to provide only an overview.
Regulations made under paragraph 11 of the schedule will set out who is eligible for a lifetime ISA by specifying who “the investor” is. We intend to provide in regulation that a new account may be opened only by a person aged under 40, and that payments to a lifetime ISA may only be made until an account holder reaches 50. That is to reflect the fact that the scheme, as discussed, is designed to support younger people in getting into the habit of saving. Draft regulations have already been published for consultation, and they will be considered and debated by the House before the product is launched.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 1 concern withdrawals. Account holders will be able to withdraw sums from their lifetime ISA at any time; that is consistent with normal ISA rules. Such withdrawals will not be subject to a withdrawal charge in the circumstances set out in paragraph 7, which include account holders purchasing their first home after saving in a lifetime ISA for 12 months or longer, or reaching a specified age, which regulations will set at 60.
Regulations will also set out detailed rules for the processes to be followed when a withdrawal is made to buy a first home. We intend to consult with industry experts to ensure that those regulations are simple to apply and that they meet our objectives for the scheme. Officials have been working hard and openly with industry experts for some months to ensure a product that works well. There will also not be a withdrawal charge when an account holder dies or becomes terminally ill, or when savings are transferred to another lifetime ISA.
Peter Dowd
To start with, I telegraph the fact that we will not pursue this matter. However, it is important to get on the record the fact that where Government policy has an effect on house prices, it is important—given the current state of the housing market, which is overheating due to lack of supply—to have that logged and noted, however marginal the effect appears to be. I am not suggesting that the Minister has brushed that point aside, but it is our responsibility to bring that effect to account.
The Minister quoted some figures on seeking advice for particular products, but 0.3% inflation on housing is a fair old amount of money. If that is 100,000 transactions a year of around £750, that is the best part of £70 million-odd a year added to house prices by this policy alone. If we are to introduce policies that add to an already overheating sector, it is important that as a nation, a Government and a Parliament, we take into account their impact. That additional £750 for that person is £750 not going somewhere else in their budget. I only say that to try to get that issue into the smorgasbord of issues that we have to take into account. I will not be pursuing the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
Government contributions to Help-to-Save accounts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jane Ellison
The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s mission to build a country that truly works for everyone, not just the privileged few. Clause 2 introduces the Help to Save product, and we can be extremely encouraged that it speaks directly to that mission. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation cited in the House of Commons Library briefing paper shows that between a quarter and a third of households have said that they are unable to make regular savings for rainy days. According to the family resources survey, a household with less than £25,000 in income is twice as likely to have no savings as a family with more than £50,000. We heard from the debt charity StepChange in its written submissions—this point was amplified in its contribution to the evidence session—that access to a £1,000 savings pot can reduce the likelihood of the average family falling into debt by almost half.
Faced with that evidence—and the evidence we all know from our constituency surgeries of people living fragile financial lives, where one thing going wrong can tip them into debt or other problems—it is only right that we provide a strong incentive and reward for working households on lower incomes to build a savings buffer.
Help to Save will support up to 3.5 million people on lower incomes who are just about managing but may be struggling to build up their savings. It will help them develop their financial resilience and ability to cope with unexpected financial pressures. Clause 2 sets out the main characteristic of Help to Save: the Government bonus or contribution, which will be paid by the paying authority. The bonus will be paid at 50% of the highest balance achieved in the account. Over the four-year maturity period of the account, an eligible individual can save up to £2,400 and earn a Government bonus of up to £1,200. We intend that HMRC will pay any bonus amounts due and that that will be passed to eligible individuals by the account provider. Schedule 2, which we will consider shortly, makes further provision in relation to Help to Save accounts and the Government bonus.
Help to Save will meet a real need and will support many of those who are just getting by, helping them to build their financial resilience and supporting their ability to cope with financial shocks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Help-to-Save accounts: further provision
Dr Whiteford
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 16, line 31, at end insert—
‘(1A) The conditions specified under sub-paragraph (1) shall not include the condition that the individual be over 25 years old if that individual meets all other specified conditions relating to the working tax credit.’
Currently those aged under 25 only qualify for Working Tax Credits if they work at least 16 hours a week. This amendment would ensure any individual aged under 25 would qualify for a Help-to-Save account if they met other specified criteria.
In relation to later amendments to the schedule, I declare an interest as a member of the North East Scotland Credit Union. I tabled the amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. In contrast to the LISA, the Help to Save product offers genuine benefits for low and middle-income savers. All our amendments today seek to strengthen it and address some of the limitations that have emerged in the written and oral evidence.
Currently, the under-25s will not qualify for Help to Save unless they are in receipt of the disabled element of working tax credit, or they are responsible for children and are working 16 hours a week or more. Many young adults under 25 who are in full-time work could benefit greatly from Help to Save. The amendment would ensure that those under 25 could qualify for a Help to Save account on the same basis as those over 25 if they meet the specified criteria.
We know that the under-25s need some encouragement to save. As we heard from the Minister, having some savings can be incredibly advantageous; it cushions them against unexpected financial shocks and prevents them having to use the excruciatingly expensive payday lenders and getting into problem debt when they face unplanned costs.
Help to Save is probably a more realistic way for people to save for a first home than the LISA. Extending it to more young people in that age group can only help to incentivise early saving and improve financial literacy. It seems wrong to deprive young adults who are already working more than 30 hours a week of the opportunity to benefit from this scheme just because of their age.
Jane Ellison
The amendment would ensure that individuals aged 25 or under would be eligible for an account if they meet the conditions relating to working tax credit eligibility. It is worth making it clear that under-25s will be eligible to open accounts if they meet the relevant criteria for working tax credit or universal credit. A person under 25 is eligible for working tax credit if they work a minimum of 16 hours a week and have a child or a disability.
Our intention is for eligibility for a Help to Save account to be determined by people passporting from working tax credit and universal credit. That is a well established way of targeting support to people on lower incomes. The Government recognise that some people of working age with lower incomes may not be eligible for Help to Save, but passporting is the simplest and most effective method available for determining and notifying eligibility; it is fundamental to the efficient operation of the scheme.
In particular, passporting means that people will not be required to complete a means test to prove that they are eligible for an account, or to contact the Government. It avoids the need to develop bespoke systems to determine eligibility that would be an additional cost to the Government and could deter many savers. That is why we will resist the amendment and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Dr Whiteford
I would rather press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 17, line 31, at end insert ‘( ) a credit union;”.
It was terribly remiss of me not to say that, as a relatively new Member, I appreciate your helpfulness in the Committee, Mr Chope. Thank you very much for that.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) expressed concern that credit unions, which in many areas have an excellent community base, command huge levels of trust and are embedded in communities, are not, in effect, one of the account providers. Hon. Members who were present at Second Reading, or who no doubt assiduously read the report of the proceedings subsequently, will know that my hon. Friend made a number of very important points, including about qualification periods and the role of credit unions in the scheme. His arguments were listened to with attention and deserve fair consideration in relation to product flexibility, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gracefully agreed to meet him and the Association of British Credit Unions. Given that, I suspect that part of those discussions will be wide and may encompass the role of credit unions as providers, so I will not push the matter today. I just wanted to get the point across that we know that a meeting will be held and we hope that it will lead to constructive discussions and outcomes.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I will be brief in supporting the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bootle. Including credit unions as providers is critical, given the vast number of savers who use community credit unions to build up incomes for later life. Many credit unions set up local pay-in points such as shops or community centres and are increasingly important, given the withdrawal of the banks from many of the communities that credit unions represent. Therefore I wholly support the amendment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I echo the comments that have been made about credit unions. I am sure that many of us, on both sides of the Committee, have credit unions in our local area. There is an excellent one in Wandsworth, which I do what I can to support with publicity and signposting for constituents. I certainly place on the record our admiration for the credit union movement. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle, said, there will be a meeting. His colleague the hon. Member for Harrow West made a very good speech on Second Reading, and I am glad that that meeting will take place.
This debate is about who provides the Help to Save product. We were clear in our consultation that the options for delivery were to engage a single provider to guarantee nationwide provision, or to open the opportunity to offer the account to a wider range of providers on a voluntary basis. Although we are keen to explore the potential for credit unions to be involved and we of course acknowledge, as I have done, the valuable work that they do in our communities, we believe that they could not guarantee the nationwide provision of accounts that we seek.
Appointing National Savings and Investments as the scheme provider, which we have obviously made public, does involve our funding it for nationwide account provision, but it also means that we can work with a single provider to ensure that accounts are easily accessible to all eligible people, and it removes what could be the significant administrative and compliance costs associated with allowing a range of providers to offer accounts. Those could include costs associated with approving providers, checking for multiple account opening, checking and paying bonus claims from different providers and ensuring that each provider is operating the account correctly.
An option whereby we funded NS&I to provide accounts while we also allowed other providers to offer accounts on a voluntary basis would not provide value for money in this environment. A product such as this operates very much at the value-for-money end of the market. However, I am clear that we should not rule out the option for a range of providers, including credit unions, voluntarily to offer accounts in the future if that would deliver national coverage, and I reassure the Committee that the Bill has been drafted to accommodate different models of account provision, should that situation arise. In the meantime, we will work with the credit union sector to explore further options for Help to Save that work for it.
The hon. Member for Bootle has indicated that he will not seek to press the amendment to a vote, and with those points and that clarification in mind, I urge him to withdraw it.
Peter Dowd
I thank the Minister for those words. I think it would be inappropriate to take up the Committee’s time pursuing the amendment any further at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ian Blackford
I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 2, page 18, line 16, leave out “maximum” and insert “average”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 5.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in schedule 2, page 18, line 19, leave out “maximum” and insert “average”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 5.
Amendment 4, in schedule 2, page 18, line 19, after “means”, insert “an average of”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 18, line 19, after “£50” insert
“across every two month period within the maturity period”.
Together with amendments 2 and 3, this amendment would allow HTS to provide for “top-up” monthly payments above £50 so long as the average payment for every two months is £50.
Ian Blackford
The amendments would allow Help to Save to provide for top-up monthly payments above £50 as long as the average monthly payment in every two-month period was £50. Many people in the target group will have fluctuating incomes. Allowing people to save a maximum of only £50 per month will reduce applications from people who may have, say, £20 spare one month and £70 spare the next.
A survey by StepChange revealed that 34% of respondents
“would prefer to be able to pay in an average maximum of £50 per month.”
The amendments would allow Help to Save account holders to save an average of £50 per month over the course of the account period. That would allow account holders to overpay to catch up following lower payments in previous months and maximise bonus payments. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the amendments as a way of strengthening the Bill.
Jane Ellison
The amendments are about the scheme rules on monthly deposit limits. They would provide that rather than the maximum monthly deposit being set at £50, a saver could add an average of £50 per month to their account, calculated over a two-month period. That would allow individuals to make additional catch-up payments to their Help to Save accounts in the event that they did not use their full £50 deposit allowance in a preceding month.
We consulted on whether individuals should be able to pay in excess of the £50 monthly deposit limit to catch up on either unused monthly allowances or withdrawals. Respondents were clear that that would add complexity to the scheme for savers and account providers, and given the objectives of the scheme and our desire for the product to be straightforward and simple, it was vital that the account rules were kept as simple as possible to ensure that the scheme was easy to understand and accessible to the target group. Having an average monthly deposit limit would complicate the simple position that we propose in relation to account limits.
I entirely understand the spirit in which the amendments were tabled, but we consulted on this issue and the feedback that we received was that that was not the most straightforward way to proceed for the target group. It may also help the Committee to know that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that on average people will deposit £27.50 into their accounts each month. That suggests that a £50 monthly limit is adequate. We have actually raised that limit from the £25 limit that was proposed for the Saving Gateway scheme—a scheme that, as some Members will know, contained elements similar to Help to Save. Quite a lot was learned from it, because it was piloted.
Peter Dowd
The Committee heard evidence from Joseph Surtees of StepChange that
“When it was introduced in the Budget, the potential eligibility for the scheme was 3.5 million, but the impact assessment says that it will probably only reach about 500,000”
and asked
“how do we get…to the 3.5 million figure?”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 28, Q49.]
Does the Minister agree that, if we are to get a higher level of engagement, the scheme may need to be more flexible, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber?
Jane Ellison
It is certainly fair to say that we want to look at all aspects of how we grow the scheme and reach as many eligible people as possible. At this stage, we disagree about offsetting greater flexibility against perhaps great simplicity, and how we balance the two. Because of the way we have structured the Bill and its consequent regulations, there is quite a lot of flexibility built into the scheme in the future. We have the £50 monthly limit in the schedule, but there are ways that we might be able to return to the product and look at it in the future. I come down on the side of simplicity in this argument, and that is why we have proposed what we have—notwithstanding the evidence we heard on Tuesday.
The Saving Gateway, which was essentially the partial forerunner of this scheme, had a proposed limit of only £25. Given the OBR’s forecast that £27.50 will be the average deposit, doubling the limit from Saving Gateway effectively allows for people to make almost twice that average deposit. In effect, the upper limit offers the flexibility that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber proposes. It is also worth noting that the four-year duration of an account will allow savers to dip in and out of saving when they can afford to put money aside. Savers will still earn an attractive Government bonus even if they are not in a position to save the full amount each month. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Ian Blackford
I thank the Minister for her remarks, but I am both a little surprised and a little disappointed. I thought the Government were in favour of freedom and choice and what we seem to have here is a Government who are trying to shut down freedom and choice. The Minister talks about complexity; I cannot see why giving consumers the choice of being able to get to £50 over an average will bring additional complexity. I think that this is really just a software issue for those who are going to be providing the scheme, so I do not accept that argument. We will be pressing the amendment to a vote, because it is the right thing to do. This is about growing the market for Help to Save, and the amendment has been put forward with a genuine desire to help the Government make this policy more attractive. The Minister talks about coming back to the scheme in the future, but I think we should put that flexibility in today. On that basis, I wish to press the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 2, page 19, line 11, at end insert—
“(e) make provision for eligible persons to be auto-enrolled into Help-to-Save accounts from benefit entitlements unless the individual chooses to opt-out.”
This amendment would enable an “auto-enrolment” workplace saving scheme which would see an individual automatically signed up to a Help-to-Save account. He or she then must “opt-out” to stop money being deducted from their pay or benefits into a savings account.
The amendment would enable the establishment of an auto-enrolment type of workplace saving scheme that would allow individuals to be automatically signed up for a Help to Save account. Individuals could of course opt out of this entirely, but for many it could help overcome the inertia and procrastination sometimes associated with getting started in setting up a savings account. These days, there are fewer and fewer high street outlets, banks and building societies—indeed, several are closing in my constituency tomorrow—and that is going to make it even harder for people to talk to somebody face to face about savings products. I believe that if an incentivised savings scheme is made easily accessible and available the likelihood of participation is greatly increased. More people who would be well advised to save but who do not do it would find it an awful lot easier to get started.
Jane Ellison
The amendment is about auto-enrolling individuals into Help to Save accounts. I understand the motivation, and given the evidence from StepChange the Government do not doubt the sincerity of the intention and the desire to help people to save. However, we have concerns, and I shall explain why we cannot support the amendment.
The amendment would provide for arrangements allowing employers or benefit paying bodies to divert money from employees’ pay or benefits into a Help to Save account, unless they chose to opt out. To return to an earlier debate about auto-enrolment, we all believe that it has been a huge success in pension saving. However, while there is a strong case for auto-enrolling people into long-term pension savings, we do not think that is the case for the rainy-day savings that Help to Save is designed to support.
We want a decision to save into an account to be an active choice made by eligible individuals at a time that is right for them. Given the focus on rainy-day savings, we think that many will want to use the account flexibly, putting aside what they can afford each month rather than committing to a fixed amount being deducted from their salary or tax credit payments. For those looking to make regular payments into a Help to Save account, a standing order that they control will be the best option. That is because many people who are eligible for Help to Save could well have more than one job or other changes in circumstances over the four-year period when they have an account. The target group for a Help to Save account is disproportionately more likely to have a series of different jobs or more than one job at the same time.
Nevertheless, an employer that wants to offer payroll deduction into a Help to Save account to its employees is perfectly free to do so—nothing in the legislation would stop them. The Government are aware of successful voluntary workplace savings schemes and we are keen to explore the role that employers and other local organisations can play to support people in getting access to Help to Save, but we have no intention of making that a statutory requirement at a time when we are still working with businesses to roll out and embed automatic enrolment into workplace pensions—particularly given the forthcoming rises in contribution rates. We think that that must remain the priority for employers. That takes us back to an earlier debate about the support we all give to auto-enrolment, and the desire not to confuse that picture.
I hope that, with those points in mind, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Dr Whiteford
I take on board the Minister’s concern, particularly for people who may be in multiple employment; that is a fair point. I am not sure that the arrangement would not be hugely beneficial for employers too, or that they would be all that resistant. The amendment is intended as an enabling provision, but in the interest of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ian Blackford
I beg to move amendment 7, in schedule 2, page 19, line 31, at end insert—
‘(2A) Where a bankruptcy order is made against a person with a Help-to-Save account any bonus paid into the Help-to-Save account will not form part of a debtors estate during insolvency proceedings.
(2B) Any bonus paid into a Help-to-Save account shall not be liable to be taken as repayment via third party debt orders.’
The amendment would ensure that those subject to a bankruptcy order would not be stripped of their assets. Currently, Help to Save affords no protection to the Government bonus paid into accounts from insolvency proceedings or third-party debt orders from creditors. The Government need to look closely at the debt collection and insolvency implications of the scheme. Given the target audience of Help to Save, it is likely that many will face financial difficulties while holding a Help to Save account. That would leave them vulnerable to third-party debt orders and potential insolvency.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I wonder why the hon. Gentleman is proposing this provision for protection from insolvency when we know that under section 283 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the bankrupt’s home is not protected from insolvency. A pension that is already in payment is also not protected.
Ian Blackford
I would not agree with the last assertion, because pension payments—certainly pension pots—are protected under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. That condition exists, so I do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady on that point.
Ian Blackford
That is not the point that I made, which was about when payments are in the pension pot. We are arguing that the pots should be protected under the Help to Save scheme. Given that a key purpose of the Help to Save scheme is to promote long-term financial resilience, it would be counterproductive if creditors could take the money saved, or even the bonus, to satisfy existing debts. That would result in creditors benefiting from public money intended to help low-income families build precautionary savings. At the very least, the bonus should be protected. For the absence of doubt, there is a precedent for that in the 1999 Act, which states that approved pension arrangements do not form part of the bankrupt’s estate.
Jane Ellison
The amendment seeks to prevent creditors from accessing the Government bonus in the event that the account holder is subject to insolvency proceedings or a third-party debt order. Obviously I appreciate that the objective is to protect the account holder, but the Government also need to consider what is fair to creditors by not providing people with an opportunity to shelter from debt proceedings when a creditor has a legal right to be repaid.
I am aware that it has been argued that a special case should be made for ring-fencing the Government bonus to avoid taxpayers’ money being used to repay debts, but I underline that the scheme rules mean that account holders will be entitled to a bonus on the highest balance achieved in the account. That represents an asset for the account holder, and it should be treated as such in any insolvency proceedings.
It is worth noting that there was a Government policy change that meant that, from October 2015, the minimum debt on which creditors can ask the court to declare an individual bankrupt rose to £5,000 from £750, ensuring that people with low-level debts are taken out of that. This measure is consistent with Government policy in other areas—that is the point my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire made—such as the rules around when funds to pay creditors can be deducted from benefit payments.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I concede that there is some worth in what the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber was saying, but my concern is that if all sorts of accounts were protected from insolvency prosecutions, people might pile all of their cash into those accounts while knowing that they were going to go bankrupt or behaving in a financially irresponsible way. That protection would not help creditors.
Jane Ellison
A fair point—I certainly acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. What we propose in the Bill around creditors and insolvency is consistent with Government policy in other areas. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to withdraw the amendment.
Ian Blackford
I am flabbergasted that some Government Back Benchers do not even understand their own legislation. The amendment would put Help to Save on the same footing as pension pots, and I will certainly press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whiteford
I beg to move amendment 1, in schedule 2, page 20, line 21, at end insert
“which must be paid no later than six calendar months beginning with the calendar month in which the account is opened”.
This amendment would reduce the time before the holder of a Help to Save account would receive a government bonus to six months.
I will be extremely brief. This amendment is very simple: it would reduce the amount of time before a Help to Save account holder receives their Government bonus to six months, which simply reflects the reality of the timeframe in which people on lower incomes are likely to have to dip into their savings to cover unexpected costs. Again, the amendment builds on research by StepChange, whose users are the target group for the product. According to StepChange, more than three quarters of people in the target income band will need to dip into savings more than once in a year, and a significant proportion will need to do so within six months. Two years is probably too long for them to see the full benefit of the bonus. A more frequent bonus payment will make the product more attractive to the people it is aimed at.
Jane Ellison
The amendment would require the Government to pay the bonus on Help to Save accounts within six months of the account opening. On Second Reading, hon. Members expressed concerns about the bonus being paid after two years and on maturity, and not more regularly. The Government are not requiring people to lock their money away in Help to Save. People will still have full access to their savings and will be paid a bonus on the highest balance obtained. Even if people are able to save for only six months, they will still be entitled to receive a bonus at the two-year point and on maturity.
We have said a number of times that the purpose of Help to Save is to support rainy-day saving over a four-year period to help people to build a buffer against unexpected financial shocks or changes in circumstances. In light of that objective, we have looked carefully at how frequently we should pay the bonus.
Similar accounts in the Saving Gateway pilots run by a previous Government ran for 18 months. Published research shows that participants had different views on account duration, but many were in favour of extending the period. Additionally, there is peer-reviewed research by US academics on individual development accounts, a similar savings scheme in the US that also provides match funding to help people on low incomes to save. The research concluded that 19 to 24 months is the optimal time period to embed a savings habit.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am somewhat persuaded by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. In the American case, is that the convenient time period for those organising the scheme, or is it the optimal time period for the saver?
Jane Ellison
My understanding—I have not read the detailed research, although I suspect I will before Report—is that it is what people who were in the scheme fed back about how they felt. That is certainly the case with the Saving Gateway research, which was published in the Journal of Economic Psychology, and I will certainly read it before we get to the next stage of the Bill. Research was published on the Saving Gateway pilot showing that participants were generally in favour of extending the period. We have the right focus there.
Kelvin Hopkins
I remember that when people on lower or ordinary incomes were paid monthly instead of weekly, it was sometimes felt that that was uncomfortable, and that short timescales were better for those on low incomes than those on high incomes.
Jane Ellison
We risk straying slightly off the point, but there has been a lot of debate about weekly and monthly pay in the discussions about the many changes to the welfare system in recent years. Universal credit, which like many other benefits is moving to a monthly-by-default payment, is subject to the same argument about striking the right balance. We think that paying the bonus at two years and on account maturity strikes the right balance, because it gives people enough time to build up their savings and develop a saving habit, while allowing them to access the bonus within an appropriate timescale.
The Government bonus is designed to provide support and a real incentive to those building up their savings over a long period, rather than supporting or incentivising short-term spending. A bonus of up to £600 after two years is an attractive target to save towards, and will encourage people to keep saving, if they can. We do not believe that smaller bonus amounts paid at more frequent intervals would provide the same incentive for regular saving over the long term.
Given the rainy-day nature of the scheme, Members may be concerned to ensure that savers can access their bonus early if they face an unexpected cost or change in circumstances, and I stress that savers can access their money at any time and still earn a bonus on their savings. The four-year duration of the account allows people to start saving again, so they can earn an additional bonus. While I recognise the strong views on this issue, the motivation behind the amendment, and that no one solution will work perfectly for all savers, I think—in light of the argument I have made and some of the evidence I have cited—that we have got the balance right in this regard. I ask the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to withdraw her amendment.
Dr Whiteford
I am disappointed that the Government have not taken on board a simple and straightforward amendment. I am minded to push the amendment to a vote, simply because many Members expressed concern about this matter on Second Reading, and the amendment could be made fairly easily.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Digital Economy Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2016 - (27 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
If hon. Members wish to take off their jackets, they have the Chair’s permission to do so.
Clause 38
Disclosure of information by civil registration officials
Amendment proposed (25 October): 107, in clause 38, page 36, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of subsection and insert—
“(a) the authority or civil registration official to whom it is disclosed (the “recipient”) requires the information to enable the recipient to exercise one or more of the recipient’s functions and,
(b) the data subjects whose information is being disclosed have given valid consent under data protection legislation.”.—(Louise Haigh.)
This amendment would remove bulk sharing while allowing certificates to be shared to support electronic government services.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 97, in clause 38, page 36, line 15, at end insert—
‘(2A) An authority or civil registration official requiring the information must specify the reasons for requiring the information to be disclosed.
(2AA) Information disclosed under this section shall not be shared with any other public or private body beyond those specified in subsection (1).”
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It has been a couple of days since we last met, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley made a very important point in her speech regarding where we should look for best practice. The UK is one of the Digital 5, and she brought up Estonia as a country that, when we consider big data, we should reflect on. In dealing with the Bill, we are casting our eye around to see how we can manage big data, personal information, between public bodies. She made the valid point that a fundamental question seems to run throughout the Bill and the clause: does the individual own the information or does the state own it? Because the Government have taken the view, unlike what happens in Estonia, that the state owns the information, we have a series of such clauses. We are primarily trying to find a way to balance the rights of the individual, while the state retains ownership of the information in any form, but, particularly as we move forward, in digital form; that is what I am concerned about.
Let me explain what is done in Estonia and why the Bill in years to come will probably need to be usurped by a new Bill. Estonia has transferred the ownership of data from the state to the individual. When the individual owns the data, there is no need for these complex fudges to try to find a way in which people’s privacy and the integrity of data can be respected, while ownership remains with an umbrella organisation.
The criticism that I make to the Government, and my hon. Friend’s point, is that a fundamental rethink or reset will have to occur at some point because of what is missing from the Bill and the clause. It talks about public bodies, but the Government do not address in this or any other clause the fact that private corporations hold enormous amounts of personal data on people and the ownership of that lies with them, not with the individual. That is why the point that she made was so pertinent. The ownership of data should lie with the individual. As a country, as a nation, we should be looking to transfer that ownership. That is why we cannot address what happens in the private sector. Absent from the Bill are any clauses or even subsections tackling data and information in the private sector. It is solely about the public sector and trying to square off those conundrums and contradictions.
The Government have missed an opportunity to empower people and to be on the side of the individual, the ordinary person, who feels disempowered by all this. They are on the side of big government and, by absence, of big corporations, which in my view is a fundamentally flawed position. That question was asked in Estonia, and it is why it reversed the answer: ownership should lie with the individual.
I can see the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, chatting to the Minister for Digital and Culture, and he will probably provide an answer that talks about a destination, saying that if someone gets on a bus, they only get off at the end destination. We all know that when someone gets on a bus, there are many stops before the destination on the front of the bus. They do not have to go all the way. I presume the Minister will explain why the clause is correct from the Government’s point of view and why my argument is flawed. He will say, “If you are going to empower the individual with data, you would need a national identification card system, as in Estonia. The empowerment of the individual must correlate with a national ID card scheme.”
The Minister will make that argument, but that is like getting on a bus and only being able to get off at the final destination, with a national ID card scheme. No one is saying that. There are many bus stops we can get off at before the end. The issue is not binary, with the place we get on the bus and the place we get off. The destination is not necessarily ID cards. The principle that these are the individuals’ own data should be at the heart of the Bill, and the clause does not represent that. The absence of any mention of the private sector is alarming.
Moving on, I want to touch briefly on another aspect that is missing from the Bill and should be considered. This is the Digital Economy Bill, but it is all about the public sector. There is an absence of any reference to the private sector per se. This part of the Bill deals with the digital economy and the provision of public services. Returning to the Estonia example and empowering the individual, people in Estonia can set up a business or company in three or four minutes online. Where is the pro-business element of the Bill? It is certainly not this clause, which relates to data and information in relation to the state and public bodies. Why can individuals here not set up businesses in four minutes? Why is it not a pro-business Bill? Why does it not talk about business? Nothing in the Bill talks about being pro-business.
The clause is simply about public bodies holding big data, and in that respect, it lives in the past, not the future. I urge the Government to think about the fundamental principles and to not make the argument that the amendments would lead to an ID card system, although Estonia does have ID cards. I would have ID cards tomorrow—it is well known across the patch that I would not be on the list of soggy, wet liberals—but that does not mean that the principle that the individual owns data would lead to ID cards. It does not. I ask the Minister, with all due respect, not to suggest that I am making that argument, because I am not.
The Bill is not pro-business and is fundamentally flawed. The clause is simply about trying to manage all the conflicts and contradictions from yesterday’s age. It does not deal with the future. The Government have fallen short. I emphasise the word “economy” in the Bill’s title—it is not about public services, but the economy. I put that word up in bright lights. Where does the Bill talk about the economy? We are talking about public bodies and public authorities.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
That was an impressive Second Reading speech. I am here to speak to amendment 97 and 107.
Chris Skidmore
Not necessarily; that has not been called yet. The amendments have been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. She finished her speech on Tuesday, and I put on record my thanks for her impressive scrutiny of the Bill, which she has done almost single-handedly. I note that she made a weighty speech about Concentrix yesterday, so I do not know how she finds the time to sleep. I am sure that it will be noted in the Lords that we have gone through a full process of scrutiny in Committee.
The Government will ensure that citizens can access future Government digital services effectively and securely, while removing the current reliance on paper certificates. That will provide more flexibility and modernise how services are delivered.
Amendment 97 would require registration officials and public authorities requesting information to specify reasons for requiring disclosure. In considering a request to share information under those powers, a registration official would first need to be satisfied that the recipient requires the information to enable them to exercise one or more of their functions.
In her speech on Tuesday, the hon. Lady raised some issues about the Data Protection Act 1998 and said that the Government should set out clearly that it is being honoured, particularly for registration. The hon. Member for Hyndburn talked about fundamental principles, and I can confirm that the Bill’s fundamental principle is its compliance with the Data Protection Act. Data should not be disclosed if to do so would be incompatible with that Act, the Human Rights Act 1998 or part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The Data Protection Act is Magna Carta of the data world, and we want to ensure that all parts of the Bill comply with it. When disclosing information, only minimal information will be provided, in accordance with the requirements of the data recipient.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his kind and polite words. If that is the case, why does the Bill contain the words “clear and compelling”, rather than “necessary and proportionate”, which is the term associated with the Data Protection Act?
Chris Skidmore
I have taken legal advice about that issue, which the hon. Lady raised in her previous speech, and I have been told that those words do not in any way, shape or form challenge or change the interpretation of and compliance with the Data Protection Act. We will be happy to look again at the wording and reflect on it if that gives her confidence that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the Data Protection Act runs through the core of the Bill. Registration officials are required to be aware of the reasons for the request, so the intention behind the amendment is already achieved by the clause.
Amendment 97 seeks to prevent the onward disclosure of information by the data recipient to any other public or private body beyond the specified public authorities listed in proposed new section 19AB(1) of the Registration Service Act 1953. Disclosures under the power will be restricted to the specified public authorities listed in proposed new section 19AB(1). In addition, personal data will be shared only in accordance with the power and in adherence to the Data Protection Act, by which the recipients will also be bound. As an additional safeguard, under the code of practice, data-sharing agreements can place restrictions on onward disclosures of data, which will be adopted where appropriate.
Amendment 107 would retain the requirement for a civil registration official to be satisfied that the information was required by a recipient to fulfil one of more of their functions before disclosing data. It seeks to add a requirement that an individual must have given valid consent under data protection legislation before any disclosure of their personal data. The data protection legislation referred to is believed to be the Data Protection Act, to which these clauses are already subject. They already state that personal data must be processed fairly. In practice, it will sometimes be necessary to share information in the public interest, where it is impractical or inappropriate to seek or rely on the consent of the individual concerned, but that is already permitted under the Data Protection Act, which we are determined to ensure remains in force.
In the hon. Lady’s speech on Tuesday, she talked about the uses of bulk data and asked me to give examples of where the powers will be used and where they are already used. The powers will allow registration officials to disclose birth data to other local authorities. Currently, a registrar is unable to notify another local authority if a birth takes place in their district but the child’s parents reside in another. Being able to disclose data across district boundaries will assist healthcare, school and wider local authority planning. Being able to share bulk information will ensure that children are known to the local authorities in which they reside and that action can be taken to address any needs of the child or parent.
Another example relates to blue badge fraud. It is estimated that about 2.1% of blue badge fraud relates to use of a blue badge following the death of the individual to whom it belonged. The new powers will allow data to be shared with the local authorities to help reduce that fraud.
Louise Haigh
The Minister gives an important example—blue badge fraud—in which data are accessed rather than shared. The local authority will have an access point into Department for Work and Pensions data to determine whether someone is disabled, but there is absolutely no need for bulk data sharing across local authorities. That is the kind of example that we should follow in the rest of the public sector.
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Lady mentions legal portals through which data can be shared. The key point is that although we have specific examples of data being accessed or shared, every new data-sharing arrangement has to be established within a very specified remit. A great example of a data-sharing arrangement for registrars that is already happening is the Tell Us Once service, in which birth and death registration information is shared across local and central Government. That system has been developed by Government, is envied by the private sector and clearly demonstrates the benefit of sharing civil registration information for both citizens and Government, but the problem is that it is very limited.
We cannot move forward by having endless tiny data-sharing agreements; we need to be able to create a wider platform. For instance, to share death data, individual local authorities have to forge individual relationships. We need to ensure that that is far broader, so that local authorities and Departments can work together to help to prevent unwarranted and unwanted mail from being sent to the family of a deceased person, which can often cause a great deal of distress.
This is evolution, not revolution. We are following the Data Protection Act 1998 and the codes of practice, which the Committee will discuss, will be reviewed every year. We can now share data effectively on a bulk level but without using personal details apart from for the benefit of those it will serve: children, local authorities, planning numbers. This is absolutely the right thing to be doing.
Disclosure will take place without consent only where that is consistent with Data Protection Act rules on fair disclosure. At all times, data can be shared only with specified public authorities as defined in section 19AB of the Registration Service Act 1953. The code of practice makes it very clear that if there are any data breaches or any of those authorities do not follow the code—we will discuss the code when we consider debt measures—they can be removed from that list. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley will agree that the necessary measures are already included in the clause and will withdraw her amendment.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn made important points about the absence from the Bill of clauses dealing with the private sector. In the evidence session, we heard from the chief executive of a tech start-up in Canary Wharf who made it very clear that nothing in the Bill would help his business or others operating in the digital economy. We will certainly return to that theme. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to new clause 31, which the Committee will consider on Tuesday morning and which will require a review of data ownership across the public and private sectors.
I am grateful that the Minister has confirmed that the Government will consider a rewording of “clear and compelling”, because I think it could lead to some confusion regarding the compliance of part 5 with the Data Protection Act. It is great to hear him praise the Tell Us Once scheme, which was set up by the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson)—I will pass on the Minister’s congratulations to him.
The Minister referred to a platform; will he confirm whether he is referring to a central database of citizens’ civil registration information? That is a key concern. I am also glad to hear that sharing information without consent will take place only in explicitly defined circumstances, but I am still not clear why chapter 2 of part 5 will not—as our amendment 97 would—require civil registration officials to disclose why they are sharing information, as all the other chapters in part 5 require data-sharing arrangements or specified persons to do. If the Minister can explain that to me in an intervention, I will happily withdraw the amendment.
Chris Skidmore
I used the word “platform” as part of a process argument about being able to look at data in the round, rather than to suggest that there would be any centralised data collection. That is certainly not the case. For public confidence, measures in the codes of practice set out clearly that when it comes to the data-sharing measures, once data have been used for the required purpose, they are then destroyed. They are not kept on any register for any historical purpose.
Turning to the hon. Lady’s second point—
The Chair
Minister, this is an intervention. I call Louise Haigh—you may intervene again, Minister.
Louise Haigh
My question stands: why is there not a requirement in this chapter of this part for the reasons for disclosure, as there is in all the other chapters? I would be grateful if the Minister intervened regarding that point.
Chris Skidmore
The registration codes of practice clearly set out that the purposes will need to be defined and that a business case will need to be made. None of that can take place until we ensure that there is a specified public function defined on the face of legislation, particularly when it comes to the code of practice that registrars will have to follow and which will be reviewed yearly. I believe that measures are in place to ensure that any data-sharing is done through a due process that is incredibly tight, restrictive and respectful of the use of individuals’ data.
Louise Haigh
I am afraid I am still not satisfied with why that requirement is not on the face of the Bill as it is in other chapters, so I will press amendment 97 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 97, in clause 38, page 36, line 15, at end insert—
‘(2A) An authority or civil registration official requiring the information must specify the reasons for requiring the information to be disclosed.
(2AA) Information disclosed under this section shall not be shared with any other public or private body beyond those specified in subsection (1).”—(Louise Haigh.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Skidmore
The clause amends the Registration Service Act 1953 to introduce new flexible data-sharing powers that allow registration officials to share data from birth, death, marriage and civil partnership records with public authorities for the purpose of fulfilling their functions. That will provide more flexibility and modernise how Government services are delivered.
Being able to share registration data will bring many benefits, for example, in combating housing tenancy fraud. The National Fraud Authority estimates that housing tenancy fraud—for example, a tenant dies and someone else continues to live in the property when they have no right to—costs local authorities around £845 million each year. Being able to provide death data to local authorities will assist in reducing that kind of fraud. The sharing of data will provide benefits for the public in a number of different ways, including the removal of barriers when accessing Government services. It will pave the way for citizens to access Government services more conveniently, efficiently and securely, for example by removing the current reliance on paper certificates to access services.
Data will continue to be protected in accordance with data protection principles, and a number of safeguards will be put in place. Registration officials will be able to share data with only specified public authorities, as defined in new section 19AB—which also includes a power for the Minister to make regulations to add, modify or remove a reference to a public body, thereby providing reassurance that the data will only be disclosed in a targeted way to the Departments listed. As set out in paragraph 58 of the code of practice, the Registrar General has a responsibility to review the code annually, which will involve the national panel for registration. As an additional safeguard, such regulations will be made under the affirmative procedure, requiring the approval of both Houses.
All data sharing will be underpinned by a statutory code of practice, as set out in section 19AC. As I have said, when revising the code the Registrar General will have an obligation to consult the Minister, the Information Commissioner and other relevant parties. The code of practice will act as a safeguard by explaining how discretionary data-sharing powers should be used. The code will require data-sharing agreements to be drawn up, which will includes safeguards on things such as how data will be used and stored and for how long they are to be retained, and forbidding data to be cross-linked in any way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
Several questions relating to the clause remain unanswered because we were cantering through on Tuesday afternoon. Will the Minister confirm, and give examples of, what the powers in this part of the Bill will exclude? Will he give some guidance on how officials are meant to determine where the line is for what is and is not included? Will there be more guidance issued for non-public sector authorities that will come under the legislation? Will he assure us that the codes, in their next iteration, will provide further guidance on how officials should deal with conflicts of interest when sharing data, how they should identify any unintended risks from disclosing data to organisations, and how sponsoring public authorities should assess whether their systems and procedures are appropriate for the secure handling of data? I would also be grateful if the Minister confirmed what lessons have been learned from the recent National Audit Office report that found more than 9,000 data incidents in the past year alone, and how the Government are improving their data processes to address those issues.
Will the Minister assure us that nothing in the Bill will undermine patient confidentiality? I am aware that the British Medical Association has written to him but has not had a response. The BMA is unclear about whether the scope of the Bill includes the disclosure of personal health and social care information, which would significantly weaken existing protections for confidential data. Will the well established rules that already protect such confidential information continue to apply, and will he assure us that these powers will not override common law in this vital area?
Finally, on a significant area that has not yet been addressed, do the Government intend to implement the EU’s general data protection regulation? If they do, why is the Bill not compliant with it?
Chris Skidmore
On the European directive, which is to be introduced in May 2018, the codes will be revised and will reflect that. That is why the flexibility we have from the codes not being written into the Bill is so important—so that we can deal with instances in which there will be change in the future. They will be updated to reflect that change in May 2018.
Civil registration officers—public servants who want to share data for the benefit of the public—are not trying to do anything that would compromise those whom they serve. In the code of practice, paragraph 47 states that privacy impact assessments will be put in place to ensure that there will be compliance with data protection obligations and that they meet individual expectations of privacy. All Departments entering into data-sharing arrangements under the powers must comply with privacy impact assessments and publish the findings. We want to ensure transparency so that members of the public understand why it is necessary for those data to be shared.
An application to share data is not simply a permissive path by which new data-sharing arrangements can be established without going through due process and regard. In the fairness and transparency section of the data code of practice, there are many questions that must be addressed in order to establish the data-sharing arrangements. They are clearly laid out.
Louise Haigh
The Minister says that civil registration officials will be required to publish their findings. What exactly will they be required to publish, under either the code or the measures in the clause?
Chris Skidmore
Paragraphs 47 and 49 of the civil registration data-sharing code of practice clearly state:
“All government departments entering into data sharing arrangements under these powers must conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment and to publish its findings. The Information Commissioner’s Conducting Privacy Impact Assessments code of practice provides guidance on a range of issues in respect of these assessments, including the benefits of conducting privacy impact assessments and practical guidance on the process required to carry one out…Registration officials entering into new data sharing arrangements should refer to the following guidance issued by the Information Commissioner on Privacy Impact Assessments which includes screening questions…to determine whether a Privacy Impact Assessment is required.”
On health care data, the Government are considering Dame Fiona Caldicott’s recommendations. The consultation closed on 7 September, and I confirm that the Bill’s powers will not be used in relation to health and care data before we have completed that process.
Louise Haigh
The Bill explicitly says that health and social care information should be excluded, but there are concerns that it is drafted so widely that it could be used for that, and I think that the Minister has just confirmed it. He is saying that it is wide enough that should the Government decide on the basis of Dame Fiona’s review that they want to share health and social care information, the Bill will enable it. Is that the case?
Chris Skidmore
The Government will respond to the National Data Guardian’s review. It will not have an impact on the Bill at this stage. The Department of Health recently concluded a public consultation and is considering how to implement her recommendations. As it will take time to make the changes and demonstrate that the public have confidence in them, it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek new information sharing powers in respect of health and care data at this time. I note that we will come to health and care data when we debate a later group of amendments on research, and I hope to provide more information when we do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Disclosure of information to reduce debt owed to the public sector
Louise Haigh
I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 40, page 39, line 21, leave out “have regard, in particular, to” and insert “must comply with”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 191, in clause 44, page 42, line 8, leave out “have regard to” and insert “comply with”.
Amendment 192, in clause 52, page 49, line 8, leave out “have regard to” and insert “comply with”.
Amendment 193, in clause 60, page 55, line 20, leave out “have regard to” and insert “comply with”.
Amendment 194, in clause 67, page 66, line 15, leave out “have regard to” and insert “comply with”.
Amendment 198, in clause 82, page 80, line 18, at end insert
“and only after the codes of practice required under sections 35, 44, 52 and 60 have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
New clause 35—Public register of data disclosures—
‘(1) No disclosure by a public authority under Part 5 shall be lawful unless detailed by an entry in a public register.
(2) Any entry made in a public register under subsection (1) shall be disclosed to another person only for the purposes set out in this Part.
(3) Each entry in the register must contain, or include information on—
(a) the uniform resource locator of the entry,
(b) the purpose of the disclosure,
(c) the specific data to be disclosed,
(d) the data controllers and data processors involved in the sharing of the data,
(e) any exchange of letters between the data controllers on the disclosure,
(f) any other information deemed relevant.
(4) In this section, “uniform resource locator” means a standardised naming convention for entries made in a public register.
Louise Haigh
These are further amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West and me to make the codes of practice, on which officials have obviously worked so hard and which were developed in consultation with the Information Commissioner, legally binding. With your permission, Mr Stringer, I will come to specific issues about the data-sharing measures and fraud during debate on clause stand part.
I appreciate what the Minister said about sanctions being enforced on those authorities that do not have regard to the code of practice, but it says on the front page of the code:
“The contents of this Code are not legally binding”;
it merely
“recommends good practice to follow when exercising the powers set out in the Bill.”
That is not really a strong enough message to send to officials and all those involved in data-sharing arrangements. I would be interested to hear examples from the Minister of when it would be considered reasonable not to follow the code, as I assume that that is why he does not want to build it into primary legislation. I know that he will tell me that his real reason is that he wants to future-proof the codes. That is all well and good, but the Bill is already outdated. One witness wrote to us in evidence:
“Part 5 seems to imply an approach to ‘data sharing’ modelled on the era of filing cabinets and photocopiers when—quite literally—the only way to make data available to others was to send them a duplicate physical copy. Modern technology has already rendered the need for such literal ‘data sharing’ obsolete: data can now be used without copying it to others and without compromising security and privacy.”
Furthermore, data sharing is not defined, either legally or technically, in the Bill or in the codes of practice. Does data sharing mean data duplication—copying and distribution—or does it mean data access, or alternatives such as attribute exchange or claim confirmation? These are all quite different things, with their own very distinct risk profiles, and in the absence of any definition, the term “data sharing” is ambiguous at best and potentially damaging in terms of citizens’ trust, cyber-security and data protection. Let me give an example: there is a significant difference between, and different security risk associated with, distributing personal information to third parties, granting them controlled and audited one-time access for the purpose of a specific transaction, or simply confirming that a person is in debt or is or is not eligible for a particular benefit, without revealing any of their detailed personal data.
What is more, there is no reference in the clause to identity and how officials, citizens, or organisations, or even devices and sensors, will be able to prove who they are and their entitlement to access specific personal data. Without this, it is impossible to share data securely, since it will not be possible to know with whom data are being shared and whether they are an appropriate person or organisation to have access to those data. Security audits, of who has accessed which data, when and why, require a trusted identity framework to ensure that details of who has been granted access to data are accurately recorded. Presumably, it will also be mandatory to implement good practice security measures, such as protecting monitoring, preventing in real time inappropriate attempts at data access, and flagging such attempts, to enable immediate mitigating action to be taken.
As I said on Tuesday, all these details are moot, as are the codes of practice and indeed the Information Commissioner Office’s excellent code of practice, if the existence and detail of data sharing is not known about to be challenged; hence the need for a register, as set out in new clause 35. That is why we have tabled our amendments and we would like the Minister to give serious consideration to the inclusion of these important principles and safeguards in the Bill. We are not talking about detailed regulations, we are certainly not talking about holding back technological advances, and we are not talking about the “dead hand of Whitehall”, as the Minister said on Tuesday. We are talking about vital principles that should be in primary legislation, alongside any new powers to share information. The most important of those principles is transparency, which is exactly what new clause 35 speaks to. It would require public authorities to enter in a public register all data disclosures across Government.
The Minister did not know the detail of the audits that are mentioned in the codes of practice. We really need more detail on those audits, as it may well satisfy us in our request for this register. Will all data-sharing agreements be kept in a single place in each Department, updated as data are shared and disclosed across Government, with Government agencies and with non-public sector organisations? Will these additional agencies keep similar audits and—crucially—will those audits be publicly available? Also, will the audits include the purpose of the disclosure, the specific data to be disclosed, how the data were transferred, how the data are stored and for how long, how the data are deleted at the end of that time frame, what data controllers and processors are involved in the sharing of that data, and any other restrictions on the use of further disclosure of that data?
If we have, in a single place, data-sharing amendments, as this amendment would establish, the public can see and trust how their data are being used and for what purpose. They can understand why they are getting a letter from Concentrix about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or why they have been targeted for a warm home scheme, and—crucially—they can correct or add to any information on themselves that is wrongly held.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, if there is an opportunity to access a proactive notification service that indicates to the member of public that their data are being used and for what purpose, that should be included in any future consideration of this matter?
Louise Haigh
I completely agree, and I believe that the gov.uk Notify service would be an excellent means by which to go about that. I hope that the Minister will consider it.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is making a valid point, which I referenced in my point about getting on the bus and the destination. She is suggesting that individuals have rights to own their information; there is a register that they could accept. This is the journey that we have to make. It is about empowering the individual. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I am pleased that the Opposition are making this point, because it needs to be made. The future will be about individual ownership of information. I hope that my hon. Friend prosecutes the argument as well as she can.
Louise Haigh
The point is vital and it is the point that was made earlier in our proceedings. Unless we get this right at this stage, it will become a scandal that the Government will then have to deal with and it will hold back progress on sharing data, as we saw with the care.data scandal. We do not want to see the Government embroiled in another scandal like that and we hope that they heed our warnings in order to avoid one in the future.
The objective behind the register is that it could be considered an amnesty for all existing data-sharing projects, with the disclosure assisting understanding of the problem and improving public trust. Let us not kid ourselves that the Bill covers the only data sharing that happens across Government. In a recent interview with Computer Weekly, the new director of the Government Digital Service, Kevin Cunnington, said:
“The real work is going on in”
places such as “Leeds and Manchester”—I would disagree with him on that point for a start, because we are not fans of Leeds in Sheffield—
“as well as London. We need to be part of that. The example I use is where DWP now runs a whole set of disability benefits. It would be incredibly helpful if DWP had selected and consensual access to some of”—
those people’s—
“medical data. Right now, NHS Digital and DWP are having that conversation in Leeds and we’re not in the conversation. Why wouldn’t GDS be in a conversation like that? If we’re going to be, we’ve got to be in Leeds—we can’t do that from here.”
We know that that conversation is happening between the DWP and the NHS—despite assurances that sharing of health and social care information is not happening across Government—only because a random official mentioned it in a random interview, so I ask this question again: does the Minister have an audit of data-sharing agreements and arrangements across Government, or is it the case, as I fear it is, that not only do the public not know which data are shared across Government, for what purpose and how they are stored, but Ministers do not know either?
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent point. What this cuts back to is the underlying theme of transparency. Rather than the Government acting in a paternal way—“We’ll do what is best for the citizens”—they should be transparent and make it clear to citizens why and where data are being used.
Louise Haigh
That is exactly the kind of attitude that underpins these elements of the Bill: “Trust us. We’ll sort it out. Give us your data. No problem. We’re going to share them freely and fairly.” The Government may well do. The problem is that the public do not have that trust in them. As I said on Tuesday, this is not a party political point. The previous Labour Government were not up to scratch in handling data either. This is not a party political attack at all. It is a genuine attempt to get these proposals in the best shape possible, to aid Government digitisation and deliver efficient public services.
Just as the Government give taxpayers a summary of how their tax money has been spent so they should give citizens information on how they have used data on them. If there is transparency through a register, there can be an informed conversation about whether a data disclosure will solve the problems that it claims to. There has been data sharing to prevent fraud for decades and a complete absence of audited and accurate results from that work. Arguing that current data sharing has not prevented fraud and so there should be more data sharing equates to doing the same thing over and again and expecting a different result.
The amendment is vital to restore and build on public trust in the Government handling of data. It is not in my nature to call on my constituents to trust this Government, but if they enacted the amendment, I absolutely would. I would be able to tell my constituents in good faith that they were right to trust their data to this or any future Government, because they and the data community could see exactly how and why their data were being used and exert some control over it. If the Government do not heed this lesson now, I am afraid that they will learn the hard way when things go the way of care.data or worse, as they inevitably will.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, and I appreciate the caution with which she approaches the subject. We have been determined that our definition of data sharing should be in the ICO’s code of practice, and we have adopted that definition in our own draft code. We will comply with ICO’s best practice, which of course means keeping careful records of all data-sharing agreements. We already keep registers of data sharing by Department, and they are FOI-able. We need to take public confidence with us. We will not allow data to be shared with a public authority that does not have appropriate systems in place.
To reassure those whom the hon. Lady seeks to assure that their data can be shared without any compromise to individual security, I will take a journey through the data sharing code of practice. When we come to establish some of the fraud elements, it will be an incremental process. Debt and fraud data-sharing pilots will be set up, and the UK Government are establishing a review group to oversee UK-wide and England-only data sharing under the fraud and debt powers. The review will be responsible for collating the evidence that will inform the Minister’s review of the operations powers as required under the Bill after three years. Devolved Administrations will establish their own Government structure for the oversight of data-sharing arrangements within their respective devolved territories.
Following that, a request to initiate a pilot under the debt and fraud powers must be sent to the appropriate review groups in the territory, accompanied by a business case. The business case must detail its operational period, the nature of the fraud and debt recovery being addressed, the purpose of the data share and how its effectiveness will be measured. Absolutely rock-solid requirements need to be put in place. For instance, the public service delivery debt and fraud powers require a number of documents to be produced as part of the case for a pilot.
Those documents will be a business case for the data-sharing arrangement, which can be collated by all the organisations involved; data-sharing agreements; and a security plan. Furthermore, as part of any formal data-sharing agreements with public authorities that grant access to information, security plans should include storage arrangements to ensure that information is stored in a robust, proportionate and rigorously tested manner and assurances that only people who have a genuine business need—
Graham Jones
The Minister is making an argument to which I would extend my previous comments. He is arguing that there will be security because we will have a data repository—it will inevitably be a single data repository—with secure firewalls around it. However, the architectural principle for which he is arguing is that all data will be kept in one place. From a security perspective, that is the most dangerous way to store data. To return to why Estonia leads the world, there is a distribution—
The Chair
Order. That is an intervention. I am quite happy if the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye, but interventions should be short. I have been very lenient with that one.
Chris Skidmore
To return to the security angle, we must have assurances that only people with a genuine business need to see the personal information involved in a data-sharing arrangement will have access to it; confirmation of who will notify in the event of any security breach; and procedures in place to investigate the cause of any security breach. Paragraph 104 of the code suggests:
“You should ensure that data no longer required is destroyed promptly and rendered irrecoverable. The same will apply to data derived or produced from the original data, except where section 33 of the DPA applies (in relation to data processed for research purposes).”
At all times, we want to ensure that public confidence is taken forward with the pilots. They will be put in place only once all the boxes have been ticked. Paragraph 108 of the code states:
“You should make it easy for citizens to access data sharing arrangements and provide information so that the general public can understand what information is being shared and for what purposes. You should communicate key findings or the benefits to citizens derived from data sharing arrangements to the general public to support a better public dialogue on the use of public data.”
Security is not discretionary. Amendment 190 would not reinforce that requirement. It is not a question of compliance with systems in place. Instead, there must be adequate systems in place and Ministers must have regard to those systems to ensure they meet the essential security specifications that the Government demand.
Amendments 191 to 194 concern the codes of practice and present a similar discussion to the one we had about using “have regard to” or “compliance to”. The powers cover a range of public authorities in devolved areas, and we want to ensure flexibility in how powers will be operated, so that we can learn from what works and adapt the code as necessary. If bodies fail to adhere to the code, the Minister will make regulations to remove their ability to share information under the power as set out in paragraph 11 of the code of practice.
As I mentioned, the requirement to have regard to the code of practice does not mean that officials have discretion to disregard the code at will. They will be expected to follow the code or they will lose their ability to share data. There could be exceptional reasons why it is reasonable to depart from the requirements of the code. To fix a rigid straitjacket creates a system of bureaucracy where officials must follow processes that run contrary to logic. This is standard drafting language adopted for the above reasons in the Immigration Act 2016, the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to name a few recent pieces of legislation.
Louise Haigh
It is welcome to hear how detailed and extensive these audits will be. If they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, will the Minister consider proactively publishing them anyway, so that we can be assured that they are all kept in one place and that data sharing happens only in accordance with data-sharing arrangements that are in the public domain?
Chris Skidmore
When we set up new data-sharing arrangements, we must remember that the ICO and the devolved Administrations must be consulted and that the powers must go before Parliament again. We will have further scrutiny when considering the regulations under the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation.
Louise Haigh
Given that the arrangements have to go through all the obstacles that the Minister has just outlined, I do not understand why not then include them in a central register, so that they are all in one place. We could then be confident that not just those cases in the Bill but all data sharing across the Government is made public and people can have confidence in how and why their data are being used and shared.
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Lady refers to new clause 35, so I would now like to address that and take her points on board. This is about informing the public about what information is being shared by public authorities and for what reason.
The Bill’s provisions already include a number of commitments to transparency and proportionality, which I have already discussed in disclosing information by public authorities. There is a consistent requirement to uphold the Data Protection Act, including its privacy principles that govern the secure, fair and transparent processing of information.
We require the publishing of privacy impact assessments and privacy notices as set out in paragraph 82 of the code of practice. The research power requires the UK Statistics Authority, as the accrediting body, to maintain and publish a register of all persons and organisations it has accredited, and they can be removed under clause 61(5), which mandates that a withdrawal of accreditation will take place if there has been a failure to have regard to the code of practice.
The requirements of the new clause would inevitably create a new set of administrative burdens, which in turn would carry significant cost implications. It is not clear how the uniform resource locator referred to would be agreed upon, or what assessment has been made of the administrative changes that may be required across the public sector. The requirement might have an unintended consequence. For example, it is possible that including information on the specific data to be disclosed would raise difficult questions about whether the public register would interfere with the duty of confidentiality or breach the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Some of the new powers—in particular, the research provisions—would involve the sharing of non-identifying information, so it is not clear how citizens would understand from a register which datasets contain information relating to them or any particular group of reasons.
The key purpose of the new powers is to simplify the legal landscape to enable public authorities to do their job more effectively and deliver better outcomes for the citizen. The new clause, however well intentioned—I respect the hon. Lady’s point—risks working against that purpose and I therefore invite her to withdraw it.
Louise Haigh
The Opposition drafted the amendments and I accept that they may not be perfect, but the principle behind the idea of a data register is impossible to argue with. If the Minister claims that these audits will be done thoroughly and that they will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act anyway, I see no reason why they should not be proactively published, so that the public and Opposition Members can have full confidence that everything in the codes of practice, which are not statutory, is being properly adhered to.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend concur that a proactive publication might be a lot more cost-effective than chasing after hundreds or, indeed, thousands of FOI requests?
Louise Haigh
Absolutely. This is where the Government often miss a trick: the interrelationship between FOI and open data could drive significant efficiencies across the Government and provide citizens and the data community with valuable data, including data that are valuable to the digital economy. I appreciate that our amendment might not be perfectly drafted, but I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the proactive publication of these audits and of all data-sharing arrangements across the Government.
Drew Hendry
There are existing mechanisms across Europe whereby information can be given to the public proactively. Does the hon. Lady agree that the public should not have to go through the process of making an FOI request—they should not have to go through all that hassle—to get the information that pertains to them and their lives?
Louise Haigh
Exactly. The data belong to them; that is exactly right. They should not have to jump over legalistic hurdles to find out how and why the Government are using data that should belong to them, and the Bill completely turns the view that they should not have to do so on its head. I take the Minister’s point about the amendment not being properly drafted. We will go away and redraft it and we will absolutely return to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
As I have already set out, the Opposition broadly support the objectives outlined in the clause, but, as we have said on several occasions, those objectives must be set within strict safeguards to enable the better management of services.
Indeed, the open data policy process, which has been referenced several times, was a practical and commendable way in which to establish key principles for data to be handled, and to seek the views of industry experts. It is just a shame that it was completely ignored.
Polls show that the public consistently approve of the better use of data across Departments to help to improve customer service; nobody could really dispute that. However, our concerns are not related to the broader principle but to the practicality of these measures.
As we heard in the evidence we received, if these new powers are used appropriately in the management of debt, they could help put a stop to aggressive, unco-ordinated approaches from Government agencies to debt. There is little doubt that debt collection for central Government Departments leaves a lot to be desired. Vulnerable citizens facing multiple hardships are being pursued in a way that is to the detriment of the overall policy of reducing debt.
Citizens Advice said in its evidence to the Committee that there has been a big growth in demand for help with debt, as policies such as the bedroom tax and complex tax credit arrangements are pushing people, through no fault of their own, into debt. The Government’s haphazard approach often compounds matters and creates perverse outcomes, whereby thousands of individuals who are claiming exactly what they should be claiming are targeted in profiling exercises, which amount to nothing short of a mass Government-sponsored phishing exercise. Such an exercise has no place in necessary Government efforts to reduce error.
Shocking research by the charity StepChange has found that these aggressive debt collection methods have resulted in Government Departments having the dubious accolade of being second, behind bailiffs and ahead of mobile phone companies, in the list of those organisations that are considered most likely to treat debtors unfairly.
Again, there is little doubt that the Government’s move to help Departments to better share necessary information on debt could help reduce the unco-ordinated approach that currently harms debtors. However, there are two problems. First, as we have heard, the Government’s debt collection process is flawed and suffers from a lack of trust; and, secondly, the clause will furnish the Government with an extension of their power in matching data, yet this year alone the Government have demonstrated an abysmal failure to match their powers to their responsibility to the users of their services. That leaves public trust hanging by a thread.
Chris Skidmore
Good debt management is a key part of achieving the Government’s fiscal policy objectives. Clause 40 provides a permissive power that will enable information to be shared for the purposes of identifying, collecting, or taking administrative or legal action as a result of debt owed to the Government. With more than £24 billion of debt owed to the Government, the problem is clearly significant.
Public authorities need to work together more intelligently to ensure that more efficient management of debt occurs. We believe that the new power will assist in achieving that. By enabling the efficient sharing of information to allow appropriate bodies to draw on a wider source of relevant data, informed decisions can be made about a customer’s circumstances and their ability to pay. Sharing information across organisational boundaries will help the Government to understand the scale of the issues individuals are facing, and where vulnerable customers are identified, they can be given appropriate support and advice.
Citizens Advice stated:
“This new power is an opportunity to advance the fairness and professionalisation agenda in government debt collection…Sharing data between debt collecting departments will create improved opportunities for better treatment of people in vulnerable situations, and must be matched with fairer and more effective dispute resolution processes.”
The Government agree with that and have worked with non-fee paying debt advice agencies to develop fairness principles to accompany the power, which are included in annex A of the code of practice.
It is important to dwell on the principles that organisations will adhere to, which state:
“Pilots operating under the new data sharing power should aim to use relevant data to help to differentiate between: A customer who cannot pay their debt because of vulnerability or hardship…; A customer who is in a position to pay their debts but who may need additional support; and A customer who has the means to pay their debt, but chooses not to pay - so public authorities, and private bodies acting on their behalf, can assess which interventions could best be used to recover the debt”,
and that:
“Pilots must be conscious of the impact debt collection practices have on vulnerable customers and customers in hardship”.
The principles go on to cover:
“Using relevant sources of data and information to make informed decisions about a customer's individual circumstances and their ability to pay.”
That process could include:
“An assessment of income versus expenditure to create a tailored and affordable repayment plan based on in work and out of work considerations, including the ability to take irregular income into account; and consideration of the need for breathing space to seek advice, or forbearance, in cases of vulnerability and hardship…Where a vulnerable customer is identified, they should be given appropriate support and advice, which may include signposting to non-fee paying debt advice agencies.”
Louise Haigh
I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that those pilots and the powers enabled in the Bill will apply only to individuals already identified as being in debt, and that they will not seek to profile individuals who may or may not be in debt.
Chris Skidmore
Yes, I can confirm that. Moving forward, I reassure the Committee that we will continue to work closely with Citizens Advice and StepChange to look at fairness in Government debt management processes. Only HMRC and DWP have full reciprocal debt data-sharing gateways in place, under the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This power will help level the playing field for specified public authorities by providing a straightforward power to share data for clearly outlined purposes. Current data-sharing arrangements are time-consuming and complex to set up, and significantly limit the ability of public authorities to share debt data. This power will help facilitate better cross-Government collaboration that will help drive innovation to improve debt management. The clause will provide a clear power for specified public authorities to share data for those purposes, and will remove the existing complications and ambiguities over what can and cannot be shared and by whom.
Christian Matheson
The Minister may have just clarified the point I was seeking to tease out of him. The problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley described show that, far from helping people with debt, the agencies acting on behalf of the Government have created debt that did not exist previously by misusing Government data. The Minister may have just assured us that that will not be the case. If the Minister is really concerned about reducing Government debt, perhaps the Government should have not chopped in half the number of HMRC tax inspectors and instead gone after the people who owe the Government tax.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Further provisions about power in section 40
Amendments made: 120, in clause 41, page 40, line 5, at end insert—
“(ba) for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour,”
This amendment and amendment 123 create a further exception to the bar on using information disclosed under Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Bill for a purpose other than that for which it was disclosed. The amendments allow use for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 121, in clause 41, page 40, line 6, leave out
“(whether or not in the United Kingdom)”.
This amendment removes the provision stating that a criminal investigation for the purposes of clause 41(2) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to a criminal investigation covers an investigation overseas in any event.
Amendment 122, in clause 41, page 40, line 8, leave out
“and whether or not in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment removes the provision stating that legal proceedings for the purposes of clause 41 may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to legal proceedings covers proceedings overseas in any event.
Amendment 123, in clause 41, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (2)(ba) “anti-social behaviour” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (see section 2 of that Act).”—(Chris Skidmore.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 120.
Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Confidentiality of personal information
Amendments made: 124, in clause 42, page 41, line 4, at end insert—
“(da) for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour,”
This amendment and amendment 127 create a further exception to the bar on the further disclosure of information disclosed under Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Bill, allowing disclosure for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 125, in clause 42, page 41, line 5, leave out
“(whether or not in the United Kingdom)”.
This amendment removes the provision stating that a criminal investigation for the purposes of clause 42(2) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to a criminal investigation covers an investigation overseas in any event.
Amendment 126, in clause 42, page 41, line 8, leave out
“and whether or not in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment removes the provision stating that legal proceedings for the purposes of clause 42(2) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to legal proceedings covers proceedings overseas in any event.
Amendment 127, in clause 42, page 41, line 12, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (2)(da) “anti-social behaviour” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (see section 2 of that Act).”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 124.
Amendment 128, in clause 42, page 41, line 13, leave out subsections (3) and (4) insert—
‘( ) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person discloses personal information in contravention of subsection (1), and
(b) at the time that the person makes the disclosure, the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether the disclosure does so.” —(Chris Skidmore.)
This amendment applies to the disclosure of personal information in contravention of subsection (1) of clause 42. It has the effect that it is an offence to do so only if the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether it does so.
Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Code of practice
Amendment made: 129, in clause 44, page 42, line 7, at end insert—
‘( ) The code of practice must be consistent with the code of practice issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (as altered or replaced from time to time).”—(Chris Skidmore.)
This amendment requires a code of practice issued under clause 44 by the relevant Minister and relating to the disclosure of information under clause 40 to be consistent with the data-sharing code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
In evidence, Citizens Advice told us that an estimated £1 in every £5 of debt in this country is debt to the Government. It found that its clients can suffer detriment when public bodies have overly aggressive, unco-ordinated and inconsistent approaches to debt collection. There is also fairly substantial evidence that central Government debt collection lags behind the high standards expected of other creditors, including water companies, council tax collection departments, banks and private debt collectors.
I ask the Minister to consider extending the common standard financial statement to set affordable payments, as the energy, water, banking and commercial debt collection sectors do. That is demonstrated by research from StepChange, which found that in terms of debt collection, those facing severe financial difficulty were likely to rate the DWP and local authorities only just behind bailiffs as those most likely to treat them unfairly.
Chris Skidmore
The Government have started work to look into the common financial statement and standard financial statement alongside non-fee-paying debt advice agencies. That work is in its infancy, but the evidence will help us to decide whether the CFS/SFS could have benefits for Government. Until that work is completed, the Government cannot commit fully to adopt the CFS/SFS.
Louise Haigh
Will the Minister give a timeframe for when that work will be completed and when we will have a statement from the Government?
Chris Skidmore
It is not possible for me to give a timeframe in a Bill Committee discussing clause stand part. I suggest that I write to the hon. Lady, setting out those details in due course.
Government debt is clearly different from private sector debt. It is not contractual. The Government provide a wide range of services to citizens, such as the NHS and education system, and targeted support for those who meet the eligibility requirements to receive benefits. In return, citizens are required to pay taxes and repay any benefit in tax credit overpayments or fines that have been imposed for criminal activity. That revenue helps to fund vital services. The Government aim to ensure that customers are treated fairly. We encourage customers to engage early, so that they can agree on an affordable and sustainable repayment plan that takes individual circumstances into account. We understand that if poor debt collection practice occurs, that can cause distress.
The clause requires in particular that the code of practice must be issued by the Minister. It sets out more detail about how the power will operate and the disclosure and use of data. All specified public authorities and other bodies disclosing or using information under the power must have regard to the code of practice, which sets out in detail best practice of how the data-sharing power should be used. That includes what data should be shared, how data will be protected, issues around privacy and confidentiality and, significantly, the set of fairness principles that I talked about, which must be considered when exercising the power in clause 40. With that in mind, and the fact I have discussed extensively how the codes of practice will help protect the most vulnerable in society, I hope the clause will stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the Minister for the commitment to write to me. It would be welcome if he could write to all members of the Committee. That shows how committed he is to improving the detail of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Duty to review operation of Chapter
Chris Skidmore
I rise to speak to amendment 130, in clause 45, page 43, line 10, at end insert—
‘( ) The relevant Minister may only make regulations under subsection (5)—
(a) in a case where the regulations include provision relating to Scotland, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers;
(b) in a case where the regulations include provision relating to Wales, with the consent of the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in a case where the regulations include provision relating to Northern Ireland, with the consent of the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland.”
This amendment requires the relevant Minister to obtain the consent of the Scottish Minsters, Welsh Ministers or Department of Finance before making regulations which, following a review under clause 45, amend or repeal Chapter 3 of Part 5 and make provision relating to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland respectively.
Chris Skidmore
It is envisaged that information-sharing powers will enable sharing arrangements to be set, but they may take place solely within a devolved territory or involving data relating to devolved matters. The amendments intend to require the consent of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland before making any regulations to amend or repeal the provisions that relate to those territories. Regrettably, we have found technical flaws with the amendments, so we will reconsider this issue and return to it at a later stage.
Louise Haigh
I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed what technical issues there are with the amendments.
Chris Skidmore
There are a number of technical issues in these amendments, and we are determined to consult thoroughly with the devolved Administrations and the relevant offices. We will do so in due course. We will return to that later in the Bill.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is unusual for the Government to introduce amendments and then find technical problems with them. That is obviously what has happened and it is very unfortunate. Given that we were expecting to debate the amendments at this point, can the Minister give us an indication of when he will bring back non-defective amendments—or whether, indeed, he intends to bring any further amendments in this area?
Chris Skidmore
When it comes to the point of process that the hon. Gentleman mentions, we intend to return to this further into the Bill. The particular issue that arose with the amendments as currently drafted is that the need for consent needs to apply correctly only to devolved matters. We found that the amendments do not reflect that, which is why we wish to withdraw them today.
Kevin Brennan
It would be helpful if that were to happen during the Commons stage of the Bill, rather than in the Lords, so that this House has an opportunity, at least on Report, to consider this aspect.
Chris Skidmore
I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and will reflect on them. I cannot give any further information at this moment. We hope to ensure that the amendments, when later drafted, will reflect the Government’s desire to listen carefully to all devolved nations and ensure that this applies across the UK.
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 46 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Further provisions about power in section 48
Amendments made: 131, in clause 49, page 46, line 43, at end insert—
“(ba) for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour,”
This amendment and amendment 134 create a further exception to the bar on using information disclosed under Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Bill for a purpose other than that for which it was disclosed. The amendments allows use for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 132, in clause 49, page 46, line 44, leave out “(whether or not in the United Kingdom)”
This amendment removes the provision stating that a criminal investigation for the purposes of clause 49(2) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to a criminal investigation covers an investigation overseas in any event.
Amendment 133, in clause 49, page 46, line 46, leave out “and whether or not in the United Kingdom”
This amendment removes the provision stating that legal proceedings for the purposes of clause 49(2) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to legal proceedings covers proceedings overseas in any event.
Amendment 134, in clause 49, page 47, line 6, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (2)(ba) “anti-social behaviour” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (see section 2 of that Act).”—(Chris Skidmore.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 131.
Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Confidentiality of personal information
Amendments made: 135, in clause 50, page 47, line 44, at end insert—
“(da) for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour,”
This amendment and amendment 138 create a further exception to the bar on the further disclosure of information disclosed under Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Bill, allowing disclosure for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 136, in clause 50, page 48, line 1, leave out “(whether or not in the United Kingdom)”
This amendment removes the provision stating that a criminal investigation for the purposes of clause 50(2) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to a criminal investigation covers an investigation overseas in any event.
Amendment 137, in clause 50, page 48, line 4, leave out “and whether or not in the United Kingdom”
This amendment removes the provision stating that legal proceedings for the purposes of clause 50(2) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to legal proceedings covers proceedings overseas in any event.
Amendment 138, in clause 50, page 48, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (2)(da) “anti-social behaviour” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (see section 2 of that Act).”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 135.
Amendment 139, in clause 50, page 48, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) insert—
‘( ) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person discloses personal information in contravention of subsection (1), and
(b) at the time that the person makes the disclosure, the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether the disclosure does so.”—(Chris Skidmore.)
This amendment applies to the disclosure of personal information in contravention of subsection (1) of clause 50. It has the effect that it is an offence to do so only if the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether it does so.—
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Information disclosed by the Revenue and Customs
Amendment made: 140, in clause 52, page 49, line 7, at end insert—
‘( ) The code of practice must be consistent with the code of practice issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (as altered or replaced from time to time).”—(Chris Skidmore.)
This amendment requires a code of practice issued under clause 52 by the relevant Minister and relating to the disclosure of information under clause 48 to be consistent with the data-sharing code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.
Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 53 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Disclosure of information for research purposes
Chris Skidmore
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 56, page 52, line 23, at end insert—
‘(3A) For the purposes of the first condition the information may be processed by—
(a) the public authority,
(b) a person other than the public authority, or
(c) both the public authority and a person other than the public authority,
(subject to the following provisions of this Part).
(3B) Personal information may be disclosed for the purpose of processing it for disclosure under subsection (1)—
(a) by a public authority to a person involved in processing the information for that purpose;
(b) by one such person to another such person.”
This amendment and amendments 143, 144, 146 to 149, 151 to 153, 159, 160 and 162 to 166 relate to the processing of information for disclosure under clause 56 so as to remove identifying features. They make it clear that a person other than the public authority which is the source of the information may be involved in processing that information.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 143 to 153, 159, 160 and 162 to 170.
Chris Skidmore
The amendments apply to the research power. Together they provide clarity on the conditions that must be met when information provided by public authorities for research purposes is processed, as set out in clause 56. They also require public authorities to obtain accreditation to process personal information with that power, and they provide further clarity on the exclusion of health and adult social care information in clauses 56 and 63.
Personal information must not be disclosed to researchers under the power unless it is first processed in a way that protects the privacy of all data subjects. Those involved in the processing of information must be accredited as part of the conditions under this power. Processing may be carried out by the public authority that holds the data concerned, a different public authority, or specialist persons or organisations outside the public sector, including those providing secure access facilities and other functions, those commonly referred to as trusted third parties, or a combination of the two.
These amendments have been tabled to ensure that the position is reflected accurately in clause 56 and to ensure that it is clear that each accredited processor can disclose information to other accredited processors as required. In addition, they clarify that a person involved in the processing of information other than the public authority holding the information can disclose the de-identified information to researchers.
As drafted, the Bill does not require public authorities to be accredited or to process data for disclosure to researchers. On reflection, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that all bodies involved in processing information are subject to the same level of accountability and scrutiny. The amendments will enable the UK Statistics Authority, as the accrediting body, to enforce a consistent approach to best practice for handling information.
Finally, it is important that the exclusion of health and adult social care data is defined in a way that is accurate and transparent. As drafted, the research clauses could be interpreted as excluding from the power public authorities that are primarily health and adult social care providers, but which provide some health-related services. That could mean that, contrary to the intention of the Bill, public authorities, including local authorities that provide a range of services, are at risk of being barred from sharing data relating to their functions because they provide some health and social care-related services.
The amendments will clarify that public authorities whose sole function is to provide health and/or adult social care services will be excluded from the power. They also clarify that public authorities that provide health and/or adult social care services as part of a range of services can share information, including health and adult social care data.
Louise Haigh
I very much welcome the amendments. Has the Minister considered the Information Commissioner’s recommendation to have an additional offence for re-identifying anonymised personal information, as in the Australian model? I otherwise support the amendments.
Chris Skidmore
We are obviously working closely with the Information Commissioner. We will consider all her recommendations in due course, but I cannot comment on that at this moment in time.
Amendment 142 agreed to.
Digital Economy Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2016 - (27 Oct 2016)
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. There is little need to dwell on this chapter of the Bill because of the safeguards that, as we have heard, are already in place and are well tried and tested. I was greatly encouraged that the Royal Statistical Society said in our evidence session that there needs to be a clear and well understood framework for the sharing of such information, as proposed in this part of the Bill. As we have said at length, we support that.
Most importantly for this debate, the Office for National Statistics operates transparently and publishes guidance on what data it uses and when, and on the public value that is derived from the data and information supplied to it for the purposes of producing official statistics and statistical research. The ONS’s information charter sets out how it carries out its responsibility for handling personal information, and the ONS’s respondent charters for business surveys and household and individual surveys set out the standards that respondents can expect.
The code of practice for official statistics has statutory underpinning in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. Statisticians are obliged to adhere to its ethical requirements, including its principles of integrity, confidentiality and the use of administrative sources for statistical purposes. The Royal Statistical Society said that consideration could usefully be given to whether a new framework for the national statistician to access identifiable data held across the Government and beyond should require a supplementary code of conduct, to extend further public confidence. I would be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed whether he has responded to that and what steps he intends to take on that point.
Finally, the national statistician recently established the national statistician’s data ethics advisory committee, which provides ethical consideration of proposals to access, share and use data. The majority of the committee are independent and lay members from outside the Government, and it operates transparently with all papers and minutes published. It provides independent scrutiny of data shares and reports to the national statistician, who then reports to the UK Statistics Authority board. That model could easily be transposed to better protect data across the Government, as described in other chapters in the Bill.
We are happy to support the measures given the excellent and long-standing safeguards that are already in place, and we hope that, in time, the codes and other requirements in other parts of the Bill follow suit.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
The clause will create a clear, permissive power for public authorities to disclose information that they hold for the purpose of research in the public interest. It will ensure that any personal information is processed before it is disclosed and that a person’s identity is not specified in the information, so that a person’s identity cannot be deduced from that information. It will establish a set of conditions to ensure that any processing of personal information is undertaken in a way that protects the privacy of individuals.
To maintain a truly innovative and competitive economy and to ensure that decisions taken on a range of economic and social issues are informed by the best possible evidence base, it is essential that we maximise the use of rich and varied sources of administrative information that is held across public data.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
I am not sure whether the Minister is aware, but Scottish universities share all their research on the internet for the public to read, ensuring world-class Scottish research can help the world. Do the Government agree that such rules should apply to all publications resulting from the research and statistics chapters of the Bill?
Chris Skidmore
I think that it is up to each university to have a policy on what research should be published and when. There is a particular situation in Scotland, but other universities may decide that their research may be used for purposes that remain confidential. Publication is up to the universities and academic bodies to decide.
Calum Kerr
The Minister is absolutely right—perhaps I rushed my question. I was trying to emphasise the point that, when data are shared, will he match that transparency, so that citizens can see what public benefit has been drawn from the use of their data?
Chris Skidmore
I shall come in a moment to the UK Statistics Authority’s position on the use of national statistics; it would benefit enormously from these measures. The potential benefits from increased access to information extend far beyond the research community. It is generally accepted that increased research and development leads to improved productivity and therefore increased economic growth. Information is increasingly a key raw material.
The research community has for some time been prevented from making better use of information held by the public sector, due to a complex legal landscape that has evolved over time. As a result, public authorities are often uncertain about their powers to share information, leading to delays, in some cases lasting years. In the meantime, projects become obsolete or are abandoned.
The Administrative Data Taskforce warned in its 2012 report that the UK was lagging behind other countries in its approach to this issue. It called for a generic legal power to allow public authorities to provide information for research purposes. As well as providing that power, which will remove the uncertainty that has frustrated the research community, the clause will provide a set of conditions that must be complied with if personal information is to be shared.
The conditions can be summarised as the sharing and use only of information that has been de-identified to industry standards to remove information that would identify, or is reasonably likely to identify, an individual, and the requirements that those who process information that identifies a person take reasonable steps to minimise accidental disclosure and prevent deliberate disclosure of such information, that all those who process personal information or receive or use processed personal information are subject to an accreditation process overseen by the UKSA, whether they are researchers, technicians or those who provide secure environments for linking and accessing data, that research for the purposes of which the information is disclosed is accredited and that all those involved in the exercise of the power adhere to a code of practice that is produced and maintained by the UKSA.
The UKSA is the designated accredited body with a duty to maintain and publish registers of all those accredited for any purpose under the power. That includes all those who may be involved in preparing personal information for disclosure to researchers and the research project itself. The results or outcomes of the research project must be publicly available, to demonstrate that the research is for the public good. The UKSA has a duty to maintain and publish the criteria for accreditation, and all activity under the power will be subject to a code of practice issued by the UKSA. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Turning to the willingness for this to happen, the clause represents an important step forward for research in the UK. It will allow greater opportunities to produce high-quality research, which, in the words of the Economic and Social Research Council, can place
“the UK at the forefront of the international scientific landscape.”
It will allow greater opportunities to improve our understanding of our economy and society.
I would like to put on record the comments of Sir Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UKSA:
“The Digital Economy Bill, currently before the House of Commons Public Bill Committee, represents a unique opportunity to deliver the transformation of UK statistics. The existing legal framework governing access to data for official statistics is complex and time-consuming. The proposals in the Bill, by making use of data already held across Government and beyond, would deliver better access to administrative data and for the purposes of statistics and research, delivering significant efficiencies and savings for individuals, households and businesses. Decision-makers need accurate and timely data to make informed decisions, in particular about the allocation of public resource. This Bill will deliver better statistics and statistical research that help Britain make better decisions.”
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Provisions supplementary to section 56
Amendments made: 150, in clause 57, page 53, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) In its application to a public authority with functions relating to the provision of health services or adult social care, section 56 does not authorise the disclosure of information held by the authority in connection with such functions.”
This amendment and amendments 168 to 170 ensure that Chapter 5 of Part 5 applies to a public authority with functions relating to the provision of health services or adult social care and other functions, but that in such a case the powers to disclose in the Chapter only apply to information held in connection with the other functions.
Amendment 151, in clause 57, page 53, line 28, leave out “56” and insert “56(1)”.—(Chris Skidmore.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Bar on further disclosure of personal information
Amendments made: 152, in clause 58, page 53, line 38, leave out “56(9)” and insert “56(3B)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Amendment 153, in clause 58, page 54, line 2, at end insert “(including section56(3B))”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Amendment 154, in clause 58, page 54, line 6, at end insert—
“(da) which is made for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour,”.
This amendment and amendment 157 create a further exception to the bar on the further disclosure of information which is disclosed under clause 56 (so that it can be processed for disclosure under that section), allowing disclosure for the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 155, in clause 58, page 54, line 7, leave out
“(whether or not in the United Kingdom)”.
This amendment removes the provision stating that a criminal investigation for the purposes of clause 58(3) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to a criminal investigation covers an investigation overseas in any event.
Amendment 156, in clause 58, page 54, line 10, leave out
“and whether or not in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment removes the provision stating that legal proceedings for the purposes of clause 58(3) may be within or outside the United Kingdom. This is for consistency and on the basis that a reference to legal proceedings covers proceedings overseas in any event.
Amendment 157, in clause 58, page 54, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (3)(da) “anti-social behaviour” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (see section 2 of that Act).”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 154.
Amendment 158, in clause 58, page 54, line 21, leave out subsections (5) and (6) insert—
‘( ) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person discloses personal information in contravention of subsection (2), and
(b) at the time that the person makes the disclosure, the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether the disclosure does so.
This amendment applies to the disclosure of personal information in contravention of subsection (2) of clause 58. It has the effect that it is an offence to do so only if the person knows that the disclosure contravenes that subsection or is reckless as to whether it does so.
Amendment 159, in clause 58, page 54, line 39, leave out “56(9)” and insert “56(3B)”. —(Chris Skidmore.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Information disclosed by the Revenue and Customs
Amendment made: 160, in clause 59, page 54, line 43, leave out “56(9)” and insert “56(3B)”.—(Chris Skidmore.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Code of practice
Amendments made: 161, in clause 60, page 55, line 19, at end insert—
‘( ) The code of practice must be consistent with the code of practice issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (as altered or replaced from time to time).”.
This amendment requires a code of practice issued under clause 60 by the relevant Minister and relating to the disclosure of information under clause 56 to be consistent with the data-sharing code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.
Amendment 162, in clause 60, page 55, line 24, leave out “56” and insert “56(1)” —(Chris Skidmore.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Accreditation for the purposes of this Chapter
Amendments made: 163, in clause 61, page 56, line 7, leave out “56” and insert
“subsection (1) of section 56”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Amendment 164, in clause 61, page 56, line 9, leave out “section” and insert “subsection”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Amendment 165, in clause 61, page 56, line 11, leave out “section” and insert “subsection”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Amendment 166, in clause 61, page 56, line 23, leave out “56” and insert “56(1)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 142.
Amendment 167, in clause 61, page 56, line 38, at end insert—
‘(6A) The Statistics Board—
(a) may from time to time revise conditions or grounds published under this section, and
(b) if it does so, must publish the conditions or grounds as revised.
(6B) Subsection (6) applies in relation to the publication of conditions or grounds under subsection (6A) as it applies in relation to the publication of conditions or grounds under subsection (2).”—(Chris Skidmore.)
This amendment enables the Statistics Board to revise the conditions and grounds it establishes for the accreditation and withdrawal of accreditation of people and research for the purposes of information sharing under Chapter 5 of Part 5 of the Bill.
Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Interpretation of this Chapter
Amendments made: 168, in clause 63, page 57, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) A person is not a public authority for the purposes of this Chapter if the person—
(a) only has functions relating to the provision of health services,
(b) only has functions relating to the provision of adult social care, or
(c) only has functions within paragraph (a) and paragraph (b).
(2A) The following are to be disregarded in determining whether subsection (2) applies to a person—
(a) any power (however expressed) to do things which are incidental to the carrying out of another function of that person;
(b) any function which the person exercises or may exercise on behalf of another person.”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 150.
Amendment 169, in clause 63, page 57, line 21, leave out “subsection (2)(a)” and insert “this Chapter”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 150.
Amendment 170, in clause 63, page 57, line 30, leave out “subsection (2)(b)” and insert “this Chapter”.—(Chris Skidmore.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 150.
Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Disclosure of non-identifying information by HMRC
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
Very briefly, I would be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed why a separate, further clause is necessary on disclosure of non-identifying information by HMRC. The safeguards in the rest of the Bill are sufficient.
Chris Skidmore
As the holder of some of the most useful datasets in the public sector, HMRC has an interest in sharing data more extensively where it does not compromise taxpayer confidentiality. The clause relates to the current legal constraints for HMRC on the disclosure of non-identifying information, allowing the UK tax authority to share information for purposes in the public interest. It deals with information that does not reveal a person’s identity: either general information that is never related to a taxpayer or information aggregated to such a degree that it does not reveal anything particular to a person.
Chris Skidmore
I beg to move amendment 171, in clause 67, page 60, line 37, at end insert—
“() a subsidiary undertaking of the Bank of England within the meaning of the Companies Acts (see sections 1161 and 1162 of the Companies Act 2006),”
This amendment means that the provisions in new section 45B of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 about access to information by the Statistics Board will apply to subsidiaries of the Bank of England as well as to the Bank itself.
Chris Skidmore
These are minor and technical amendments to various definitions in proposed new sections 45B and 45C of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. Sections 45B and 45C give the UK Statistics Authority a right of access to information required for its functions held by Crown bodies and public authorities respectively. Under section 45B, if a Crown body declines to provide information requested by the UK Statistics Authority, the authority may decide to lay the related correspondence before the relevant legislature, including the relevant devolved legislature for the devolved Crown bodies. Under section 45C, before issuing a notice to a devolved public authority that is not a Crown body, the UK Statistics Authority must seek consent from the relevant devolved Administrations.
Amendments 173 and 176 amend the definition of the phrase “Wales public authority” in sections 45B and 45C to refer to a new definition of “Wales public authority” being created by the Wales Bill, which is currently going through the House of Lords. They ensure that sections 45B and 45C are updated with a new definition of “Wales public authority” and will operate consistently with other definitions.
Amendments 172 and 175 amend the definition of “Scottish public authority” in sections 45B and 45C to capture public authorities with mixed functions or no reserve functions within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998. Amendment 172, which amends section 45B, also refers expressly to a public authority that is part of the Scottish Administration, clarifying that these are Crown bodies to be dealt with under section 45B.
Section 45B states that Crown bodies include
“the Bank of England (including…the Prudential Regulation Authority)…the Financial Conduct Authority…and…the Payment Systems Regulator”.
Amendment 171 clarifies that the reference in section 45B to the Bank of England also includes any of its subsidiaries. That means that section 45B can also cover bodies such as the asset purchase facility fund, which the Bank of England set up in 2009. Amendment 171 also means that any subsidiaries that the Bank sets up in future will be treated in the same way under section 45B as the Bank itself.
Amendment 174 reflects the fact that the Prudential Regulation Authority is currently a subsidiary of the Bank of England formed under section 2A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This position will change when section 12 of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 comes into force. Section 12 changes how the PRA is formed and gives the Bank of England functions as the PRA. Amendment 174 therefore ensures section 45B applies during the transitional period before section 12 of the 2016 Act comes into force. It treats the wording in brackets in the relevant part of section 45B as not applying until section 12 comes into force. Until then, the PRA, as a subsidiary of the Bank, will be covered by amendment 171.
Amendment 171 agreed to.
Amendments made: 172, in clause 67, page 61, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert “the public authority—
() is a part of the Scottish Administration, or
() is a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998).”
This amendment modifies the requirement for a request for information under new section 45B of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and any response to be laid before the Scottish Parliament so that it applies to a request to public authority which is a part of the Scottish Administration or a Scottish public authority with mixed or no reserved functions.
Amendment 173, in clause 67, page 61, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 62 and insert
“the public authority is a Wales public authority as defined by section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment modifies the requirement for a request for information under new section 45B of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and any response to be laid before the National Assembly for Wales so that it applies to a request to a Wales public authority.
Amendment 174, in clause 67, page 62, line 13, at end insert—
‘( ) Until the coming into force of section 12 of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 subsection (1)(b) has effect as if the words in brackets were omitted.”
This amendment makes provision about the reference in new section 45B(1)(b) to the Bank of England in the exercise of its functions as the Prudential Regulation Authority in the period before the coming into force of section 12 of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016. Until that section comes into force the Authority will remain a subsidiary of the Bank and so will be covered by the reference in amendment 171.
Amendment 175, in clause 67, page 62, line 41, leave out from “authority” to end of line 3 on page 63 and insert
“which is a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998).”
This amendment modifies the requirement to obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before giving a notice under new section 45C of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 so that it applies to a notice given to a Scottish public authority with mixed or no reserved functions.
Amendment 176, in clause 67, page 63, line 5, leave out from “authority” to end of line 10 and insert
“which is a Wales public authority as defined by section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment modifies the requirement to obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before giving a notice under new section 45C of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 so that it applies to a notice given to a Wales public authority.
Amendment 188, in clause 67, page 65, line 3, at end insert—
‘( ) The statement must be consistent with the code of practice issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (as altered or replaced from time to time).” —(Chris Skidmore.)
This amendment requires a statement issued under section 45E of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 by the Statistics Board and relating to the exercise of its functions under sections 45B, 45C and 45D of that Act to be consistent with the data-sharing code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
As the Minister has just outlined, clause 67 differentiates access to information held by Crown bodies and a power to require disclosures by other public authorities. In essence, it enables the statistical authorities to request information from Crown bodies and to demand it from other public authorities. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed why there is that distinction. He may well be aware that the Royal Statistical Society and the ONS would like the Bill to be amended to include the power to require disclosure from Crown bodies in exactly the same way as from public authorities. What consideration has been given to that? Why are the same requirements not on both types of public authorities?
Chris Skidmore
The clause gives certainty and teeth to data supplied to the UK Statistics Authority. Official statistics are not an optional extra. If they are incomplete, decisions made by the Government and Parliament that rely on those statistics could be misinformed, late and lose impact. UKSA must have the data equipment necessary to produce the numbers that decision makers need to make the best decisions in the interests of the country.
Existing legislation provides precedents for requiring businesses and households to provide information for producing aggregate statistics about the economy and society. For instance, the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 requires businesses to report the data required for the production of UK economic statistics. For the past 100 years, the Census Act 1920 has required every household to provide information once every 10 years so that we can understand our population and society. To put that in context, censuses are long established but expensive. The 2011 census cost us almost £500 million. Census data are the statistical spine of decision making, including the allocation of public funds.
Allowing UKSA access to administrative data the Government already hold is more efficient. We should not be asking people in business questions when we already know the answers from other sources. Under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, UKSA must seek legislation every time it needs access to Government datasets where there is no existing data-sharing gateway. That mechanism is limited and only removes barriers that existed before the 2007 Act, and will become increasingly redundant over time.
The clause realises the expectation that, where UKSA needs access to datasets to produce statistics, it should be given that access. Section 45B requires Crown bodies, in particular central Government Departments, to provide data when UKSA asks for them, or, where necessary, have their refusal put before Parliament. Why treat Crown bodies differently from public authorities? That way of working, set out in sections 45B and 45C, ensures consistency between how a Crown body interacts with another on the one hand, and how a Crown body interacts with a non-Crown body on the other.
Sections 45C and 45D allow UKSA to require data from public authorities and large businesses. In practice, UKSA will focus on businesses that hold data likely to support to UKSA’s data needs, reducing the existing burden of surveys on businesses and individuals. UKSA must be sure that the data it relies on will continue to be provided, to ensure the integrity of the statistics it produces and the integrity of decisions based on those statistics.
Section 45F makes it clear that public authorities and businesses must comply with the notice they receive from UKSA under sections 45C or 45D, which draws on existing precedents for enforcement seen for the census and business surveys. Section 45E also requires UKSA to publicly consult on a statement of principles and procedures it will apply when operating these new powers. UKSA will lay that before Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
Louise Haigh
Section 45B lays out that UKSA must
“specify the date by which or the period within which the public authority must respond to the request.”
What kind of period are we are talking about? What kind of period does the Minister consider reasonable in which a public authority must respond to a request from UKSA?
Chris Skidmore
I will write to the hon. Lady on that particular point with further information. I am more than happy to do that. She correctly noted that timeframes are set out, which highlights the transparency arrangements already set down in the Bill. That has been well thought through, and we are determined to ensure that we work closely with UKSA going forward. UKSA will publicly consult on a new code of practice to support public authorities in consulting it on planned changes to data systems to protect the accuracy and integrity of its statistical outputs. Again, that will be laid before Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
We have spoken previously about codes of practice. Illustrative first drafts of the statement and the code have been made publicly available, including to members of the Committee, and they continue to be developed ahead of a full public consultation in a few months’ time. We are determined to ensure that the research and statistics communities are given the tools to enable them to do their jobs efficiently and effectively going into the 21st century. We want to ensure that the UK is a leader in developing statistics and research.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
OFCOM reports on infrastructure etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
I welcome the other Minister back to his place, and I look forward to the lengthy correspondence that the Cabinet Office Minister and I will be having. The Minister for Digital and Culture and I also had lengthy correspondence when he was at the Cabinet Office, and I look forward to that continuing.
Will the Minister lay out what the clause seeks to achieve? What reports would Ofcom publish under this power that it currently cannot? Would this extend to requesting and publishing information that was referenced in an earlier debate—right at the beginning on part 1—potentially in relation to existing broadband and communications infrastructure and to where Openreach and other providers are rolling out broadband in order to ensure a more effective market? The Opposition welcome all attempts by regulators and Government to make as much data open as possible, so we very much welcome the powers in the clause.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
Clause 69 allows Ofcom to prepare and publish reports on underlying data at times it considers appropriate as opposed to at specified times, as is currently the case. The short answer to the hon. Lady’s question is yes. Before the end of the year, Ofcom will publish a “Connected Nations” report, for example, which typically goes into detail about the connectivity of the infrastructure, but there are restrictions at the moment on when these can be published. We think it is better to allow Ofcom to prepare and publish reports at times that it considers appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 70 and 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Provision of information to OFCOM
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 177, in clause 72, page 70, line 15, after “135”, insert “of the Communications Act 2003”.
This amendment makes it clear that the Act amended by clause 72 is the Communications Act 2003.
The amendment corrects a minor error to clause 72. We omitted the words
“of the Communications Act 2003”.
I consider this to be a pretty technical amendment.
Amendment 177 agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Information required from communications providers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
I would like to put on the record again that this Bill was clearly not ready for Committee. We have just seen another example of an amendment that was completely uncalled for. In the last part, amendments had to be withdrawn that were incorrect. I hope that the proposals are properly examined in the Lords and that this is not a recurring theme throughout future legislation that this Government introduce. It is very disappointing to see the lack of preparation for this Bill.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
The hon. Lady is doing a marvellous job for her Front-Bench team, but having sat through several Bill Committees, I assure her that this situation is not particularly unusual. What is important is getting the Bill absolutely right and making sure that we use this opportunity to scrutinise it. We should proceed in the spirit of us all wanting the best thing and stop taking pops at the drafting team.
Louise Haigh
I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West that this was not common practice under the last Labour Government, and I am horrified to hear that it has been common practice over the past couple of years.
Matt Hancock
Amendment 177, which was agreed on a cross-party basis, corrects what was in fact a printing error. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her rather pernickety point. I am glad that the Committee has had the opportunity to correct the problem.
Louise Haigh
It is good to hear that it was the 177th amendment that the Government have had to table to this Bill.
Let us move on to clause 73. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we welcome the clause, which has clearly been drafted with consumers at its heart. The clause provides Ofcom with powers to require information that will enable and empower consumers to switch, thereby creating a much more efficient and open market with fewer barriers to entry.
Ofcom does not currently have powers to require communications providers to provide information on quality of service, such as how they are doing on customer service, complaints, fault repairs or the speed of installation, and it does not have the power to specify how it would want that information to be provided. We welcome these new powers, which will make it much easier for Ofcom to publish this important comparative information that will help consumers.
I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on the points raised in relation to clause 69. He said that BT is about to be forthcoming with information on its existing infrastructure and on the roll-out of broadband. Can he confirm whether that information has been provided? If not, when does he expect it to be provided?
Subsection (5) of proposed new section 137A of the Communications Act 2003 states that the power conferred on Ofcom
“is to be exercised by a demand, contained in a notice served on the communications provider”.
Prior to that, a draft notice will stipulate a reasonable notice period. Can the Minister give us some examples of what he would consider to be a reasonable notice period for a particular dataset? Will that be in negotiation with a provider, or will it be set by Ofcom? What will be the consequence for communications providers that refuse to comply? Finally, how quickly would he like to see Ofcom publish the publishable data after receiving them from a communications provider?
We are happy to support clause 73 stand part.
Matt Hancock
Clause 73 paves the way for greater access to information to help consumers make more informed decisions. The hon. Lady has set out exactly why that is needed. The clause will also enable Ofcom to require providers to collect, retain or generate data for these purposes and to ensure that consumers are easily able to access information that is most relevant to their decision. The power will enable Ofcom to require information in machine-readable formats, for example, so that third parties can mash it and provide it in a usable, meaningful and accessible way for the consumer, thereby helping things such as comparison websites, which we strongly support.
On the hon. Lady’s specific questions, the data will form part of Ofcom’s data publication before the end of the year. She asked about a reasonable notice period, which will be for negotiation with providers. It is for Ofcom to decide when it is appropriate to make a publication, and it will endeavour to do so as soon as possible. On the consequences for providers that do not supply the data, these are highly regulated markets in which Ofcom has significant powers, some of which we are enhancing elsewhere in the Bill, so there will be very serious consequences for a provider that does not abide by a requirement from Ofcom to publish. I hope that answers the questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Appeals from decisions of OFCOM and others: standard of review
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
The clause will reform the appeals process against Ofcom decisions, speeding up the process and ensuring that consumers’ interests are better prioritised. The Communications Act 2003 states clearly that Ofcom’s principal duty is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, but clearly there are issues with how the current appeals process works.
The current process is that Ofcom makes a decision following full consultation with the industry and the public; under the Competition Appeal Tribunal rules, an affected body can then appeal against the decision. Ofcom has six weeks to lodge its defence, and a month later substantive appeals are considered in a court case management conference, at which procedural and substantive points are raised. Third parties can then intervene, after which the appellant can lodge a reply. About a month before the hearing, the parties can lodge skeleton arguments. The hearing then takes place, and judgment is usually reserved. That judgment can take anything from weeks to up to a year. Parties then have about three weeks to decide whether they want to go to the Court of Appeal.
Not only is that process incredibly cumbersome, but it allows for considerable new evidence and new parties to the appeal, of which Ofcom had no knowledge at the consultation phase, to be brought forward mid-process. Under the new system, both the process of gathering evidence, including for the cross-examination of witnesses and experts, and the general treatment of that evidence are designed to be slimmed down. The system will still allow for an appeal, of course—that is only right for the sake of justice—but it will ensure that the appeals process does not unduly benefit those who can afford to litigate. It is alleged that it is currently those with the deepest pockets who bring forward the greatest number of appeals; indeed, most appellants have far deeper pockets than Ofcom has to defend itself with.
I have heard the concerns of some within the industry about the changes, as I am sure the Minister has. Although we are in favour of the Government’s proposals, I would appreciate the Minister’s response to some of those concerns. In a submission to the Committee, a group of the largest communications providers has claimed that the current appeals regime works well for consumers and has delivered consumer benefits to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.
Calum Kerr
I understand the rationale behind trying to split up the powers that Ofcom has been given and make the process slimmer, but it is quite an achievement to get BT, Sky, Virgin Media, Vodafone and O2 in agreement. I share the hon. Lady’s concern and look forward to the Minister’s response, which I hope will help to allay it.
Louise Haigh
I agree, and although I support the Government’s objective, it is of concern that such a wide range of communications providers—the biggest investors in communications infrastructure in the UK—are so vehemently opposed to the changes. This is exactly what the Committee stage of any Bill is designed for: to test out arguments and make sure that the right thing is being done. Will the Minister confirm what impact assessment of the proposals has been made, and what benefit he anticipates the changes will bring to consumers?
The submission that I mentioned claims that if the proposed regime had been in place, the mobile call termination case in 2007 would have led to a £265 million loss to consumers over the two-year period from 2010 to 2012. It states that
“in each of the cases cited, the Tribunal’s decision was that Ofcom’s decision had not gone far enough in consumers’ favour. The quantifiable financial impact of these appeals totalled a net benefit to consumers of around £350-400m.”
It says that the merits review
“enabled these errors to be corrected, the finding of the Government’s 2013 research was that on a JR”—
judicial review—
“standard, each of these decisions would have stood unadjusted.”
No one is saying that Ofcom will get things right 100% of the time—clearly, it will not. The new appeals process is not saying that either, but it will substantially raise the bar for appeals by allowing only regulated bodies to contest how a decision was made. Is the Minister confident that the decisions cited in the evidence from BT and the other providers would still be corrected under the new regime? The providers claim that they would not.
We have heard mixed messages about whether the proposals will bring the communications regulator in line with other utilities regulators. Ofcom told us in evidence that they would do just that, but is it not the case that the price control decisions of both Ofgem and Ofwat are subject to merits review by the Competition and Markets Authority? Will the Minister confirm why that is the case for other industries but not for communications?
On SMEs, techUK is particularly concerned that the higher bar of judicial review will have a disproportionate impact on smaller providers, which brought 17% of appeals between 2010 and 2015. I would be grateful if the Minister assured us that his Department has fully considered the impact these changes will have on SMEs, and particularly on new entrants to the market.
I understand that there will always be winners and losers in any regulatory change. The Minister will no doubt enjoy basking under the adoring gaze of TalkTalk and Three, but he will have to live with the fact that he is in BT’s and Virgin’s bad books for now. What is also clear is that for most people this appeals regime is far from well understood, as the industry claims. In fact, they would find it very difficult to understand why changes that could benefit them are being held up, sometimes for years on end, and why big communications providers are spending millions of pounds on litigation when they should be ploughing that money into helping their customers.
That is no basis on which to continue an appeals regime that leads to excessive litigation and smothers changes that may help—indeed, in some cases, may transform—consumers’ relationships with their communications providers. Clearly, during the exercise of that duty, Ofcom will be required to intervene and make a ruling, which sometimes the industry may not like.
If the broad contention on this side is that Ofcom should be given further powers to ensure that the industry acts in the best interests of consumers, there is little point in allowing an appeals process to continue that is so lengthy that it can render any changes useless. One particularly compelling example given in the evidence session was about the need for far greater switching for consumers. The chief executive of Three remarked that we are at the bottom of the class in terms of switching, and that despite nearly a decade of campaigning little has been done to get rid of provider-led switching. That was because when Ofcom tried to legislate on it, to enable consumers to switch, one of the major mobile providers was able to litigate and push the matter into the long grass, from where it has not emerged until today.
With all that in mind, and pending answers to the questions that I have put to the Minister, we are happy to support the clause.
Matt Hancock
That was an excellent assessment of the pros, cons and challenges around the proposed changes to appeals. Much of the analysis and thinking that the hon. Lady has just set out is what we went through in coming to the same conclusion that it is sensible to change the appeals process.
I will set out some of the detail of the changes and then I will answer the specific questions that were put. The clause alters the standard review applied by the Competition Appeal Tribunal when deciding appeals brought under the Competitions Act 2003 against decisions made by Ofcom. This is in order to make the appeals process more efficient. The changes will not apply to appeals against decisions made by Ofcom using powers under the Competition Act 1998 or the Enterprise Act 2002.
Currently, appeals can be brought and decided on the merits of a case, and this exceeds and effectively gold-plates article 4 of the EU framework directive that requires that the merits of a case are taken into account in any appeal. The result of this over-implementation is an unnecessarily intensive and burdensome standard of review that can result, as the hon. Lady set out, in very lengthy and costly appeals litigation, which can hinder timely and effective regulation, and risks Ofcom taking an overly risk-averse approach to regulating the sector properly.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Would it also not give Ofcom much more credibility in the eyes of the organisations that it regulates, because they would realise that they had much less ability to overturn its decisions?
Matt Hancock
That is right. We heard the evidence from Three and TalkTalk, who are in favour of this change. That is no surprise, as they are essentially the insurgents in the infrastructure market, and the incumbents were less keen on this change. We also heard from Which? and Citizens Advice, which explained that it is no surprise that large companies want to keep the status quo.
It is not my job to bask in the reflected glory of the appreciation from Three or TalkTalk, nor is it to have undue concern, rather than due concern, for the complaints of those who disagree with this change.
Calum Kerr
The briefing we received recognises the Government’s line on the current approach but disagrees with the contention. It actually puts forward a form of words that it believes, if inserted, would not risk any issue with the relevant European directive. Have the Government considered that? I am happy to forward that form of words if the Minister does not know what I am referring to; it is in the latest briefing.
Matt Hancock
Again, I am happy to look at any detailed representation, but we have had significant and extensive discussions about this, including with techUK and others. On the SME point that techUK specifically raised, that was covered in the impact assessment that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley asked about. It was published on 12 May; on page 15 it sets out the concern that, if we had a separate system for SMEs, we would end up with a yet more complicated process, as opposed to a simpler one, which I think would be an overall benefit.
Louise Haigh
I completely accept that we should not have separate regulatory systems for SMEs and larger providers. Will the Minister confirm that the new judicial review process will not unduly hinder SMEs, in contrast to the current “on the merits” appeal process?
Matt Hancock
I have looked at that specific point and I am satisfied that the new process does not, because a judicial review can take into account those sorts of concerns but is a more efficient process of appeal.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, I should say that we have considered using the language of the directive but we do not believe that it materially changes our approach. I said I would get back to the hon. Gentleman; I was a bit quicker than even I expected.
On that basis, I hope that the use of the well-tried and well-tested judicial review will prove a more efficient regulatory basis in future.
Louise Haigh
The Minister has not addressed a couple of points: the potential loss to consumers that the industry claims the new system will create and the cases that would not have been brought under the existing system; and the mixed messages we have heard about whether the Bill brings Ofcom into line with other utilities regulators.
Matt Hancock
On the first point, I am convinced that this change will act in the benefit of consumers, because we will have a quicker regulatory approach. The big incumbents will not be able to hold up a regulatory decision through aggressive use of the appeals process. Instead, we will have a more efficient appeals process. I am convinced that this will improve the situation for consumers.
Of course, it is possible to pick out individual cases that may have gone the other way or may not have been able to be considered under the new approach. First, it is not possible to know whether that is the case without testing them. Secondly, looking at individual cases out of context does not allow us to step back and look at the effective operation of the system as a whole. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees with that approach.
Louise Haigh
But is it not the point that those decisions were made by Ofcom and were incorrect, according to the tribunal? They were not made with consumers’ best interests at heart and they would not have been appealed under the new system because the method by which they arrived at those decisions was correct. Is there any scope in the proposals to allow certain examples, such as those put forward by the industry, to be given a merits-based review, as with price control reviews by Ofgem?
Matt Hancock
The cases that the hon. Lady and the industry cited have been assessed, and we believe that judgment under a JR system would have gone the same way as under the old system—but quicker. I hope that deals with that concern. JR is used in a large number of other areas. Of course there are specific other cases in which it is not, but it is a strong basis of appeal that is regularly used in public sector decisions. If material error is present, it can then be addressed by judicial review. I hope I have answered the hon. Lady’s questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Functions of OFCOM in relation to the BBC
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
We do not wish to oppose Ofcom’s new role in regulating the BBC, for which clause 75 provides—as the Minister knows, we supported the BBC charter agreement last week in the House—but we have some concerns, which are shared by the BBC, about how Ofcom’s new role will work out in practice.
Distinctiveness is an absolutely vital characteristic of the BBC and its services. It is one of the things that justifies its public funding. The BBC should deliver its public purposes and mission, and it should serve all audiences, through distinctive services. Critically, distinctiveness should be judged at the level of services, rather than programmes. That does not mean that the BBC should focus on “market failure” programming or never make a programme that the commercial sector might make. Instead, the test should be that every BBC programme aspires to be the very best in its genre. Overall, the range of programmes in the BBC services should be distinguishable from its commercial competitors. There is a concern that Ofcom could be too prescriptive in the standards it expects of the BBC. For example, it might focus on quotas, such as the number of religious or news hours, rather than a substantive, qualitative assessment, and rather than a standard, such as high-quality journalism.
Evidence shows that BBC services are distinctive and have become more so in recent years. Audiences agree: more than 80% of the people responding to the Government’s charter review consultation said that the BBC serves audiences well, almost three quarters said that BBC services are distinctive and about two thirds said that they think it has a positive impact on the market.
The definition of distinctiveness in the agreement and the framework for measuring it are therefore critically important. The section of the charter agreement that relates to the new powers that will go to Ofcom requires Ofcom to set prescriptive and extensive regulatory requirements, which must be contained in an operating licence for BBC services. Ofcom must have a presumption against removing any of the current requirements on the BBC—there are about 140 quotas in the BBC’s existing service licences—and seek to increase the requirements overall by both increasing existing requirements and adding new ones.
Ofcom has been given detailed guidance about what aspects of distinctiveness it must consider for the BBC’s TV, radio and online services. That follows an old-fashioned approach to content regulation based on prescribing inputs, rather than securing audience outcomes, such as quality and impact. The BBC is concerned that it will introduce a prescriptive and inflexible regulatory framework that could restrict the BBC’s editorial independence and creativity.
Clarity about the definition of distinctiveness would be welcome. It should be applied to services, not individual programmes. The extensive content quotas in clause 2 of the charter should be a response to a failure to be distinctive, not the starting point.
Christian Matheson
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, when the Government came up with the idea of distinctiveness, they themselves were not absolutely clear what it meant? Frankly, we are still at the stage at which the Government might say, “We don’t know what it is, but we might recognise it when we see it.”
Louise Haigh
That is a very great concern. There is a serious risk of confusion about how the new regulatory regime is going to work for both Ofcom and the BBC. To be frank, I do not think quotas are appropriate in this respect. I have got nothing against quotas—I was selected on an all-women shortlist, which aim to increase the number of women in the parliamentary Labour party.
Louise Haigh
The Minister is absolutely correct that I would have won it on an open shortlist. It is very kind of him to say that.
But quotas in this respect restrict creativity and innovation, which are prerequisites of distinctiveness. Ofcom, as an independent regulator, should have the freedom to determine how best to regulate the BBC to secure policy goals. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed what consideration has been given to the impact this will have on the quality programming we have come to expect from the BBC.
Finally, there is a concern that Ofcom may prejudice value for money over public interest. It would significantly reassure the BBC and the public, and would provide a greater degree of certainty over how Ofcom will behave in its enhanced regulatory role, if the same principles applied to the BBC charter—that there must be parity between public interest and value for money—were applied to Ofcom as well.
Matt Hancock
I am glad we have cross-party support for the clause, as we do for the BBC charter. It is incredibly helpful to the BBC’s role that it knows that the basis on which it operates and is regulated is supported on a cross-party basis.
It is very important—I will read this clearly on to the record—that distinctiveness as set out in the framework agreement is about BBC output and services as a whole, not specific programmes. Ofcom has the capability to make judgments about the overall distinctiveness of BBC output and services as a whole. That is the basis on which we expect it to operate under this legislation.
The hon. Lady asked whether there should be guidance underneath that. As she set out, there is existing guidance, and the public are very happy in large part with the result of that. I reject the idea that we cannot have any detail underneath the basis that distinctiveness should be decided on BBC output and services as a whole. At the moment, as she set out, there is detail, and it works well.
This is essentially an incremental approach. The BBC already faces this guidance and operates successfully. The clause is not prescriptive in that regard. Ofcom needs to operate in a reasonable way and exercise its judgment to ensure that we get the much-loved BBC operating as well as it can, as it has in the past and as it should in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
TV licence fee concessions by reference to age
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 76, page 74, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (4)(a) after “concession” insert “provided for by the regulations”.”
Section 365A(4) inserted by clause 76(6) gives the BBC power, where they determine that a TV licence fee concession is to apply, to provide how entitlement to the concession may be established. This amendment makes a consequential amendment to the Secretary of State’s power to make similar provision.
Matt Hancock
Clause 76 will transfer policy responsibility for the concession that provides for free TV licences for those aged over 75 to the BBC. These technical amendments clarify the relationship between the Secretary of State’s power to set concessions and the BBC’s power to set concessions for those aged 65 and over. The amendments provide clarity, making it clear that the power of the BBC from June 2020 to determine age-related concessions for people over 65 extends to any such concession as previously provided for by the Secretary of State, with the exception of the current residential care concession. That was always the intended effect of the clause, and the amendments merely provide greater clarity in the drafting and remove any ambiguity.
Amendment 178 agreed to.
Amendments made: 179, in clause 76, page 74, line 26, after “section” insert “or section 365A”
This extends the definition of “concession” given in section 365(5) of the Communications Act 2003 to section 365A inserted by clause 76(6).
Amendment 180, in clause 76, page 74, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
‘(5A) Regulations under this section may not provide for a concession that requires the person to whom the TV licence is issued, or another person, to be of or above a specified age, unless—
(a) the age specified is below 65, and
(b) the requirement is not satisfied if the person concerned is 65 or over at the end of the month in which the licence is issued.
(5B) Subsection (5A) does not apply to—
(a) the concession provided for by regulation 3(d) of and Schedule 4 to the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/692) (accommodation for residential care), or
(b) a concession in substantially the same form.”
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to continue the existing concession in relation to accommodation for residential care, including its age-related element, after May 2020, but after that date any other age-related concession would be a decision for the BBC (see amendment 181).
Amendment 181, in clause 76, page 74, line 33, leave out from “apply” to end of line 39 and insert—
‘(1A) Any concession under this section must include a requirement that the person to whom the TV licence is issued, or another person, is of or above a specified age, which must be 65 or higher, at or before the end of the month in which the licence is issued.
(1B) A determination under this section—
(a) may in particular provide for a concession to apply, subject to subsection (1A), in circumstances where a concession has ceased to have effect by virtue of section 365(5A), but
(b) may not provide for a concession to apply in the same circumstances as a concession within section 365(5B).” —(Matt Hancock.)
This amends the power of the BBC from June 2020 to determine age-related concessions for people over 65, to make clear that it extends to any such concessions previously provided for by the Secretary of State, with the exception of the current residential care concession (see amendment 180).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 38—Responsibility for policy and funding of TV licence fee concessions—
After section 365(5) of the Communications Act 2003 insert—
“(5A) It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to—
(a) specify the conditions under which concessions are entitled, and
(b) provide the BBC with necessary funding to cover the cost of concessions,
and this responsibility shall not be delegated to any other body.”
This new clause seeks to enshrine in statute that it should be the responsibility of the Government to set the entitlement for any concessions and to cover the cost of such concession. This new clause will ensure the entitlement and cost of over-75s TV licences remain with the Government. It would need to be agreed with Clause 76 not standing part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
I rise to address new clause 38, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. I am sorry to say that this is where any cross-party consensus on the Bill ends. We absolutely do not support clause 76 or any of the amendments to it. Not only the Opposition, but the more than 4 million over-75s in this country who currently make use of this benefit oppose the clause. The benefit was promised to them in last year’s Conservative manifesto, a manifesto that, frankly, many of them will have voted for in good faith. Now, just 16 months into the Parliament, the Government are abandoning that pledge on the pretence that it should now be for the BBC to decide. Well, it will not only be Opposition Members, but millions of over-75s, and indeed future over-75s, who see right through that underhand tactic.
Just to concentrate the Committee’s mind, I did a bit of research at 11 o’clock last night, when I was still in my office writing my speeches for today. Given that more than 89% of over 75-year-olds make use of the free TV licence introduced by the previous Labour Government, in the Minister’s West Suffolk constituency there will be 8,863 over-75s who potentially stand to lose out because of the Government’s tactics—that is one of the highest numbers in the entire country. I do not have good news for the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office either: 7,121 over-75s in his constituency will be very unhappy with this measure.
An awful lot of disgruntled over-75s will be coming the Ministers’ way in future surgeries. There will be quite a queue at their constituency offices. I would not rule out the pensioners having a copy of the Conservative manifesto in hand, because that manifesto contained a pretty unequivocal promise:
“We will maintain all the current pensioner benefits including Winter Fuel Payments, free bus passes, free prescriptions and TV licences for the next Parliament”.
In fact, the header above that list of pensioner benefits said:
“We will guarantee your financial security”.
Those benefits were all introduced by the previous Labour Government.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the manifesto mention anywhere that the Government might transfer their responsibility for any of those benefits to an unelected body?
Louise Haigh
No, that is exactly my point. Whether or not the BBC gains responsibility for this provision is moot. The BBC is an unaccountable organisation when it comes to setting welfare policy. This represents the start of a slippery slope. Where does it end once the Government start asking other bodies to make decisions on who gets benefits? This is yet another broken promise—one promise has already been broken in part 3—so we are not doing very well. I am sure the powerful older voter lobby will not take this lying down.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that this measure was not imposed on the BBC? The deal was negotiated with the BBC in exchange for other things, including opening up revenue opportunities such as by closing the iPlayer loophole.
Louise Haigh
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman makes that point, because I was just about to say that I am sure the Government will argue that the BBC has been rewarded handsomely in the charter renewal process and that the BBC will decide its funding policy for over-75s within that context.
From 2018, the BBC is being asked to shoulder £200 million of the annual cost of free TV licences, and it will assume the full £745 million annual bill from 2020—that amounts to more than a fifth of the entire BBC budget. It is more than enough to fund Radio 4 ten times over, and it is almost enough to fund the entire budget of BBC 1. The BBC has been asked to take control of setting the entitlement for over-75 licences because the Government know that they cannot afford it at its current rate. We accept that the BBC has asked for responsibility for this policy, but that is because the cost of the policy was enforced on it through negotiations. It is outrageous that the BBC is being asked to fund it at all.
Kevin Brennan
It is interesting that my hon. Friend used the term “negotiations” and the Minister repeated it from a sedentary position. There is a difference between negotiations between equals and being negotiated with by someone holding a loaded gun to one’s head.
Louise Haigh
That is absolutely right. The Opposition made clear in the debate on the BBC charter our utter condemnation of the underhand, aggressive, bully-boy way in which the Government “negotiated”. It was not a negotiation. As a former trade union rep, I recognise a negotiation when I see one, and the way the Government handled the previous licence-fee settlement was nothing of the sort. That led us to the position we are currently in. The BBC should never have been given the responsibility for delivering on a Conservative party manifesto pledge. It should have felt able to reject even the suggestion that it take on the cost of free TV licences for the over-75s.
Nigel Huddleston
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the BBC is not capable of effective negotiations? Its senior executives include Labour’s former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
Louise Haigh
The point is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the BBC was essentially in negotiations with a gun to its head. It was not a free and fair negotiation. The individual to which the hon. Gentleman just referred does not sit on the BBC board, and I do not believe he was involved in the negotiations with the Government.
The fact that we have reached this point—that the BBC was in essence forced to agree to become an arm of the Department for Work and Pensions—says a lot about the overbearing, menacing way the Government treated an organisation that they should cherish, and the cavalier disregard they have shown to the over-75s to whom they made a promise last year. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that promises should be kept. Behaviour like the Government’s brings disrepute on all Members from all parties. It makes people think that it is exactly what politicians do: we promise things in elections that we have absolutely no intention of delivering. It is a problem for all Members, whether Government or Opposition.
Despite public outcry, the Government have still not ruled out further stick-ups of the type that have got us into the position we are in now. They have refused to establish a transparent process to set the licence fees of the future. The Opposition do not consider it a done deal. With new clause 38, we are seeking to guarantee free TV licences to over-75s. That would give the responsibility for the policy and the funding of TV licences back to the Government, where it belongs. There would be no more wriggling out of a decision that should be laid firmly at the Minister’s door.
If the Conservatives want to rid themselves of the cost of the free TV licence, they should have the courage to say that they are doing it. They should have put it in their manifesto and campaigned on it; they should not have created a non-ministerial branch office of the DWP in the BBC to do their dirty work for them. That is why if our new clause was accepted we would be calling for the scrapping of clause 76 in its entirety.
The new clause is very clear: it should be for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to specify the conditions under which people are entitled to concessions, and to provide the BBC with the necessary funding to cover the cost of those concessions. That is how it was set up under the previous Labour Government, and it is under those conditions that it should continue. The responsibility should not be delegated to any body other than the Government themselves. They should not be allowed to get away with delegating the responsibility and effectively forcing the BBC to take the rap.
This is a point of principle for the Opposition. We cannot accept a policy that takes the responsibility for even a tiny part of our social security system and gives it to an organisation with no direct accountability to the electorate. Unaccountable organisations do not have to face the consequences of their decisions, especially given the announcement we have heard today from the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Even HMRC does not want to see private sector involvement in decisions on tax credits. A non-ministerial body has said that the private sector should not be involved in who does or does not receive tax credits, or any other type of benefit. That is exactly the argument we are making.
Private sector organisations are the wrong bodies to be involved in deciding who gets benefits, not only because they are incentivised by profit but because they are unaccountable. They do not have to stand for election based on those decisions, and therefore they should not be allowed to make them. It is the equivalent of outsourcing children’s services to Virgin and, in the process, asking them to pick up the tab for child benefit and requiring them to decide who gets it. Our social security system is far too precious for BBC executives, however noble their intentions or professional their considerations, to decide who is and who is not entitled to a benefit of any description. Labour introduced the free TV licence for the over-75s. It cannot be a BBC executive, unaccountable to the public and unaccountable to all our constituents, who calls time on it.
If the amendment falls, it will be high time that the Government were honest about what they were doing and honest with the voters. If they are not, Labour will do everything in its power to make it clear to those millions of over-75s exactly what is happening: their TV licence entitlement will be reduced or taken away not by the BBC, but by the Government who knowingly and cynically engineered the change.
Calum Kerr
What a fantastic presentation of a new clause, which I absolutely agree with.
Having looked into this whole area, I find it staggering. The BBC is faced with the prospect of huge cuts, but I am concerned that it is suddenly being passed the responsibility for setting policy. The Bill shows that the Government like to outsource as much as possible, because they outsourced most of the content to Ofcom in the early stages. However, the proposal relating to free TV licences for the over-75s is an absolute abdication of responsibility. We have all been invited to enough Age Concern events to know how isolated elderly people feel and how important television is for them. This is fundamentally welfare policy.
Kevin Brennan
On the point about isolation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that what the Government are effectively doing is equivalent to devolving concessionary fares to private bus companies and then letting them decide whether older people should have concessionary fares?
Calum Kerr
Absolutely. I see we are on a bus theme, which must be because the hon. Member for Hyndburn has returned to his place.
We must consider the risks inherent in this shift. With its budget potentially squeezed in future, the BBC is the one faced with choosing a priority. The BBC will have to decide whether someone should get a free TV licence. Fundamentally, that is welfare policy. I hope the Government are listening and will reconsider. The new clause is well worded and I fully endorse it on behalf of the Scottish National party.
Christian Matheson
I support the new clause and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley on an outstanding contribution among numerous outstanding contributions during the Committee’s considerations.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is absolutely right that the proposal is an outsourcing of responsibility, but there is more to it than that. The Government are not only putting a further financial squeeze on the BBC, but when, as may be inevitable, the allocation of TV licences to the over-75s has to be reviewed, they will apparently have a clean pair of hands. It will be, “Not us, guv—it was the BBC what did it”, when that may well have been the intention all along. It is, again, outsourcing of responsibility and an attempt to evade responsibility, put on the financial squeeze, take a step back and say, “It’s nothing to do with us. It’s that bad BBC. Because that bad BBC is so bad, we shall cut them even more to punish them for how they have treated pensioners.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who does not serve on this Committee, described the events of June and July 2015 when the so-called negotiation took place as a drive-by shooting when we were in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Hon. Members have today talked about negotiations with a gun to the head; a drive-by shooting is an appropriate description of what happened.
The BBC board was taken by surprise by the motives of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Select Committee asked the chairwoman of the BBC Trust whether she and her fellow trust members had considered resigning in protest at what was happening; she declined to answer. I am sure that there were discussions.
Kevin Brennan
Is there not a further cynicism to this? The Government did that in the full knowledge that the policy had what the Treasury often calls “future reach”, as the number of over-75s is likely to go up. Even given that the Government are partially compensating the BBC for this, they know full well that the policy will become more expensive.
Christian Matheson
That is an extremely good point, and it reads back to the point that I made earlier: when there has to be a review of the cost of the policy, and perhaps a reduction in the availability of free TV licences, Ministers—perhaps they will be shadow Ministers by that time—[Interruption.] We fight on to win. Conservative Members will be able to point to the BBC and say, “It was the BBC what done it”, in order to evade all responsibility. But they will not evade responsibility, because this will not be forgotten, if they get away with doing it. There is a much better alternative: the excellent new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley.
Louise Haigh
I am appalled by what is, as my hon. Friend is clearly laying out, a naked attempt to evade responsibility. Does he share my concern that this is the beginning of a slippery slope? Where exactly does this end? Once the principle that the Government are attempting to put in the Bill is in legislation, to whom else can they outsource responsibility for their social security policies?
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am cautious about straying too far from the point under discussion, but she says that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. It is not, because the Government have form in this area. I look to you, Mr Streeter, for a little bit of latitude here.
There are, for example, massive cuts to local government funding; the Government have taken huge amounts of money away from local authorities, expect them to come up with cuts and reductions in services, and then say, “It is nothing to do with us; blame your local authority.” There is one point on which I would disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley: this is not the beginning of a slippery slope; it is a continuation of form. The Government have been rumbled, and they know it.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The amendment is important. It defines the Opposition against the Government. We value the BBC, but there is always a criticism, and the Government are reaffirming people’s view that the Government do not really trust the BBC. If they can do anything to undermine the BBC, they will, instead of supporting it. During the passage of the charter, there has been to-ing and fro-ing, and criticism of the BBC, using the stick of distinctiveness and other sticks, such as the five-year break clause.
The Government always say that they are there to stand up for the BBC and give it the freedoms that it wants, but this is not a freedom, of course; it is a shackle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the Government are trying to outsource responsibility. They will not do it on bus passes; they will not say, “We’ll make the bus companies make the decision on free bus passes”, but they will make the BBC accountable for the over-75s’ free TV licences. I do not think that the Government can escape that responsibility, or the accusation that they are continually chipping away at the BBC.
Let us talk about the issue in numbers. By 2020, when the BBC has to pay fully, the figure will be £700 million. That is a considerable amount of money for the BBC to find at a time when the Government have chipped away at BBC budgets through a bit of slicing here and another bit of slicing there, and even with a cap on the licence fee.
Kevin Brennan
Is it not correct that at that point the people at the BBC will be faced with a decision, which is to do what is in their nature—to make programmes, to produce content and so on—or to continue an aspect of what is, after all, social policy? Will they not always have to look at what their core activity is: programme making and their distinctive role in the broadcasting universe?
Graham Jones
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. There is no need to add too much to that, other than to say that if we want to talk about the Government’s view of the BBC and this chipping away, which our new clause is designed to prevent, it is the outsourcing of programme making again to 100% programme making that will now be made out in the private sector and not in-house. Again, it is part of the package of making the BBC less viable, so that we arrive at a day when a tough decision might have to be made because the BBC as it exists now has been completely undermined. The policy is not to put it on a firmer footing. This £700 million is a huge part of that chipping away at the BBC.
Calum Kerr
In reality, the Government by all means could have had a financial settlement that reflects the same outcome, but the fact is they have passed the policy. Why pass the policy other than to abdicate responsibility?
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was moving on to, which is that the policy is also about passing responsibility. The Government want to shape the decision and take the credit where there is an upside, and to dump it on the BBC where there is a downside. That is what this is about—so the BBC is left with it.
Suppose the Government wanted to offer further icing on the cake and have over-70s get the free TV licence. The Government would take the credit for that, but any difficult decisions, such as only over-80s getting the free licence and the 75-year-olds losing out, will of course be the BBC’s fault. We can see exactly what is happening and the duplicity of the argument. The Government are setting the BBC up with a dilemma: it will take the stick for any downsides, but for any upsides the Government will be up there on the podium, all backslapping each other, saying, “Great social policy!”
There is no escaping that, and I do not think that the general public are fooled—they can see. It would make perfect sense for the Minister to accept new clause 38, because the public see what the Government are doing with that shift of responsibility for the over-75s. The public will not be fooled by the shift; they can see precisely what Ministers are trying to achieve. The public, too, will be concerned and asking how it affects them, the ordinary person. Will the BBC, faced with further cuts, have to say, “Well, we’re sorry, it’s only over-80s who will get it”? Decisions and responsibilities are outsourced to the BBC, and the licence fee payer, in particular those coming up to that age, will be wondering, “Hang on, I’m going to get the worst of both worlds—either a Tory Government or the BBC cutting my licence fee.” I do not think that the public will be too happy. They will not not see through this—sorry about the double negative.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is right. This predates the Minister’s time in post, so I very much hope that he takes the opportunity to go back on his predecessor’s decision. The Government thought they were being very clever with this move to outsource and put the duty on the BBC, but as my hon. Friend says, everyone will see right through this. Nobody will blame the BBC. The responsibility will lie clearly with the Government, and I hope that they are listening and will act on his points.
Graham Jones
We trust that the Government will listen to the public and see that they are on the wrong side of the argument, but perhaps we will find out in a few minutes that they do not recognise that.
Kevin Brennan
I do not think the 5,503 people in my constituency who will be affected are fools, but does my hon. Friend agree that any Member who votes for the change must think that the people in their constituency who will be affected by it are fools? To take an example at random, the hon. Member for Devizes has 6,478 constituents who will be affected.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have glanced over the figures, and it seems that more people will be affected in the constituencies of Government Members. Perhaps those Members should be mindful of their constituents who will have real concerns about the proposal. They will not be fooled by the idea that the Government are taking a genuine and reasonable approach in giving the BBC responsibility for TV licences for over-75s.
If the Government have to take with one hand—and I do not agree with that—they could at least have made an attempt to give back with the other hand. Other than some minor giveaways to the BBC, they have made no attempt to correct even the fiscal element of the change, never mind the moral, ethical, social and public policy elements. The Government say in their explanatory notes that the BBC cannot expect to get any retransmission fees from Virgin, which is covered by the Bill, or Sky, which is not. There will therefore be no material change in the relationship between platform providers and content providers such as the BBC, which are forced to provide their content on those platforms. The Government could at least have corrected the fiscal element of the change by doing something about that commercial relationship, but instead they decided to take £700 million from the BBC. They already have a track record of slicing BBC funding for pet projects such as local TV or broadband.
The public will not be fooled. Thousands of constituents of Government Members will see the change and wonder why their Member of Parliament has taken this decision. Those in receipt of an over-75 TV licence, or coming up to that point, will think it is a deterioration in public policy. They will think, “This is not in my interests. I don’t agree with it. Why has my Member of Parliament voted against the new clause?” Government Members should think long and hard about the new clause, because I am sure their constituents will not approve of them voting against it.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I did not intend to speak to new clause 38, but the power of the arguments made by Opposition Members has led me to rise to my feet. As a vice-chairman of the all-party BBC group and a fan and defender of the BBC, I cannot let some of the comments that have been made go unanswered.
If the situation were as simple as costs being transferred from the Government to the licence fee payer so that older people lost out, I would be the first to join Opposition Members in the fight against it, but that is not what the Government are proposing. We have to look at the change in its totality. For example, there is no proposal to end the over-75s’ free TV licence. It is clear that the Government wish that to continue. It was part of the negotiations and agreements that the BBC agreed to as part of the overall package. It was quite happy to accept responsibility for the over-75s’ licence fee funding.
Louise Haigh
It is interesting to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government have ended top-slicing. What is his opinion of the contestable fund that should have gone back to the BBC? There was an underspend in the top-slicing he mentioned. We have had no commitment from the Minister, so that will be a one-time-only thing, and we do not know that it will continue after the three-year period.
The Chair
Order. I am keen that we focus on the new clause and on clause 76 stand part, and not allow ourselves to get into a wider discussion about the future of the world and the BBC as we know it.
Mark Menzies
The other reason that I oppose new clause 38 is that the BBC, under the settlement, has a clear commitment to original content. Conservative Members should be reassured, as should older people listening and reading about the debate and the Government’s measure. The money does not come from a money tree and would have to be found from somewhere, and it would be found from taxpayers, many of whom are over 65. Elderly people themselves would have to find money to go towards paying for over-75s’ free TV licences. That money is now coming out of the licence fee, so taxpayers’ money is now available to go into other things. It is important that we do not forget our elderly constituents and that the Government in their totality do everything they can to ensure that the money that is freed up from being spent on the over-75s’ free TV licence goes to older people.
Graham Jones
I am grateful to my hon. neighbour for giving way. I respect the fact that he has in the past been a passionate spokesperson for the BBC, and I hope that he continues to be. He argues that it is the Government’s policy not to change the current arrangements for over-75s’ free TV licences. One therefore has to ask: why is it the BBC’s responsibility if it is the Government’s policy?
Mark Menzies
I take compliments wherever they come from and I am certainly happy to take them from the hon. Gentleman. The key question for me is: are we, in one form or another, providing free TV licences for over-75s? Yes, we are. Is the BBC, under the current settlement, out of pocket? No, it is not because the licence fee is being increased and top-slicing is ending. The BBC is committing to continue to invest record sums of money in facilities such as BBC Salford, which has been truly transformational up in the north-west. If money were not an issue in the public sector, I would be saying, “Absolutely, let’s continue to find more money for the BBC to provide TV licences to an even larger group of people.”
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is making a stout and reasoned defence of the Government’s position and many aspects of the settlement with the BBC. I accept that, but can he say truthfully that he believes that it is the right move to transfer responsibility for this policy from the Government to the BBC?
Mark Menzies
I think it was part of the overall negotiation. Look at the package that was agreed, which included the end of top-slicing—a considerable liability that the BBC itself felt was an unfair burden on it under the previous settlement—and responsibility for broader licence fee management. Looking at it like that, I think it is a fair settlement during a difficult financial period.
It is easy to castigate the Government’s move on measures such as this, but look at it against the backdrop I have outlined. There is more money for the BBC and also an agreement from the BBC. This was not objected to or protested against by the BBC management. They are not raising this as an unfair charge, in a way that at times the previous BBC management cited the issue of broadband top-slicing as unfair. The Government noticed that was unfair, acted upon it and removed it.
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate defence and trying to justify the Government’s position. I applaud him for trying to make the best of what is a bad job. He talks about fairness and says that it is the 65-year-old licence fee payer who will subsidise the 75-year-old. There are twice as many over-75 TV licence holders in Beverley and Holderness as in Hyndburn. Where is the fairness in pensioners in Hyndburn subsidising pensioners in Beverley and Holderness, where there are twice as many free TV licences?
Mark Menzies
If you will forgive me, Mr Streeter, I will not get into the debate of whether Beverley and Holderness or Hyndburn should be the ultimate beneficiaries, because that is ultimately about Lancashire and Yorkshire—a subject I will stay well away from.
I conclude by saying I appreciate the efforts of the Opposition in raising this point, but we have to appreciate that, at the end of this settlement, the BBC will have more resources going into it.
Mark Menzies
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me; I have given way to her several times. The BBC will have more resources as a result of this. The over-75 licence fee will become the responsibility of the BBC, but the indications from the Government are clear: we are committed to free licences for the over-75s, as we promised in our manifesto.
Matt Hancock
It was going so well and we were having such a rational debate until that sudden outburst. Let me respond to the points that were made. I am proud to support clause 76, which safeguards the TV licence and delivers on our manifesto commitment to maintain free TV licences in this Parliament. Until that speech right at the end, we heard an awful lot of bluster but saw little light, so I will remind the Committee of a few facts.
First, transferring the responsibility for the free TV licences to the BBC as part of the funding settlement was agreed with the BBC and is what it says on the tin: it is part of a funding settlement. The question of who pays is part of the funding of the BBC. In July last year, Tony Hall, the Director General of the BBC, said:
"I think we have a deal here which is a strong deal for the BBC. It gives us financial stability."
I suggest that anybody who votes against clause 76 votes against financial stability of the BBC and is ultimately voting to put the free TV licence at risk. I will be saying to all 8,853 of my constituents who get a free TV licence that we are safeguarding the free TV licence.
In the run-up to the 2015 general election, during which we committed to protecting the TV licence in this Parliament, who was it that wanted to do away with it? Who was it? A certain Mr Ed Balls, who is now more famous for being on the TV than for talking about TV policy. When he was questioned about whether the universal free TV licence should stay, while he was saying that the universal winter fuel payments should not, he said:
“I think you have to be pragmatic”
about the TV licence. It was the Labour party that put the free TV licence at risk and we are proud that we supported it in our manifesto.
The director-general did not stop there. He also said:
“The government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”
Unfortunately for those who seek to cause a fuss about this, their view on funding seems to go against the view of the director-general of the BBC.
Matt Hancock
I will give way if the hon. Gentleman can explain why he disagrees with the director-general of the BBC.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister does not understand parliamentary procedure. That is not a reason to give way. He should give way to allow me to ask him a question, to avoid my having to make a speech. My question—a straightforward question, which does not require anything but a straightforward answer—is on what principle he thinks that this is the right move.
Matt Hancock
On the principle that the BBC is responsible for the funding of the BBC according to the licence fee negotiations agreed with the Government. This is a funding decision, and funding issues are for the BBC.
I have given the Opposition a couple of quotations from the head of the BBC about why he agrees with the policy. Let me give them another quotation:
“The Labour party welcomes the fact that the charter provides the BBC with the funding and security it needs as it prepares to enter its second century of broadcasting.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 699.]
Not my words, but those of the boss of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). Well, I agree with her boss—he was absolutely right.
Matt Hancock
Of course I will give way—if the hon. Lady can explain why she disagrees with her boss.
Louise Haigh
I made it clear that we support the BBC charter, but my boss—as the Minister calls him—and I also made it clear that we do not support this element of it.
I have two more quotations to put to the Minister. In the Lords debate on the charter two weeks ago, the assessment of the former BBC director-general, John Birt, was that
“the impact…will be—over the span of a decade—to take almost exactly 25% out of the real resources available to the BBC for its core services. A massive reduction in programming is therefore simply unavoidable.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2016; Vol. 774, c. 1950.]
The former chairman of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten, then said:
“I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said about the licence fee settlement—not just the finance on the table but the way it was done. It was a scandal to do it like that”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2016; Vol. 774, c. 1954.]
The Opposition absolutely agree.
Matt Hancock
That is not related to clause 76. What is related to the clause is the fact that the BBC agrees it has the funding it needs, as I set out and as agreed by the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
My next point is about why we are transferring the power and why it would be wrong to adopt new clause 38, which would undermine the BBC’s funding settlement. The reason is that the BBC asked for it. It is incumbent on those who propose new clause 38 and oppose clause 76 to explain why they disagree with the BBC, with this strong settlement and with all those who say that we have provided a good funding settlement for the BBC. Instead of pressing the new clause, I suggest that the hon. Lady should support clause 76, to put the BBC’s funding on a sustainable footing for years to come.
Louise Haigh
The hon. Member for Fylde said that he opposed our new clause on two grounds, of which the first was that the BBC provides free TV licences. It does, but we have absolutely no guarantee that it will continue to do so.
The Minister is correct that the BBC asked for this, but as I referred to earlier, the BBC asked for the policy on who should and should not get a free TV licence because the funding was forced on it. It asked for that funding because it wants to reduce the number of people who get free TV licences in the future—it as much as said that to us. We do not want the BBC to have that policy; nor do we want it to have the funding settlement. It is a principle that we fundamentally oppose, so we intend to test the will of the Committee.
The Chair
We will come to the new clause later in our proceedings, but right now the question is that clause 76, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Direct marketing code
Louise Haigh
I beg to move amendment 195, in clause 77, page 75, line 22, leave out “direct marketing” and insert
“any form of marketing, including direct marketing, or customer engagement”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 196, in clause 77, page 75, line 27, leave out “direct marketing” and insert “marketing and customer engagement”.
Amendment 197, in clause 77, page 75, line 40, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) In this section—
“customer engagement” means the interactions initiated between a business and an individual or group of individuals for marketing and other business purposes;
“direct marketing” means the processing and use of personal information for marketing purposes;
“marketing” means the business processes through which goods and services are moved from being concepts to things that customers and potential customers want.”
New clause 34—Power of Information Commissioner to take action on unsolicited communications—
‘(1) The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (S.I.2003/2426) are amended as follows.
(2) In Regulation 31(1), between “sections 55A to 55E” and “of the Data Protection Act 1998” insert “and section 61”.
(3) In Schedule 1, after paragraph 8B insert—
8C In subsections (1) and (3) of section 61—
(a) for “an offence under this Act” there shall be substituted “a contravention of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2000”;
(b) for “guilty of that offence” there shall be substituted “liable for that contravention”; and
(c) for “proceeded against and published accordingly” there shall be substituted “served with a notice, proceeded against of punished accordingly”.’
This new clause seeks to allow the Information Commissioner’s Office to take action against company directors for breaches not only of the Data Protection Act 1998, but of the 2003 EU regulations on unsolicited communications.
Louise Haigh
Thousands of individuals are plagued by nuisance calls every day. I will turn to that in my remarks on clause stand part, but I shall speak to the amendments and new clause first. We welcome the inclusion in the Bill of a direct marketing code. If it works effectively, it will contain practical guidance and promote good practice in direct marketing activities. It will help to guide the experiences of companies and individuals, but direct marketing, as we know, is fairly narrowly defined and refers to the direct selling of products and services to the public. It is covered under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the privacy and electronic communications regulations. The rules cover not only commercial organisations but not-for-profit organisations such as charities and political parties. The rules for direct marketing are very clear and are becoming —absolutely rightly—increasingly tougher.
There are two types of nuisance call: live marketing calls—unwanted marketing calls from a real person—or automated marketing calls, which are pre-recorded marketing messages that are played when someone answers the phone. They are covered by a raft of legislation and regulation attempting to clamp down on that type of behaviour. Our amendments attempt to broaden the definition of the new direct marketing codes, so the law will cover not only direct consumer marketing but consumer engagement.
Direct marketing uses personal data and demographic insights relating to residence and the habits of people previously to market to people individually and directly. Consumer engagement is much broader and involves the use of personal data to engage with customers for a broad set of business processes, which include, but are not restricted to, direct marketing. TV advertising, for example, is not considered to be direct marketing, but TV advertising campaigns can be designed with information derived from consumer data and used to target broad groups of consumers based on data derived from individuals.
In our view, the direct marketing code, which we very much welcome, and the Information Commissioner’s guidance in this field should cover this broader use of individuals’ data. As we have said throughout, we want data to be used responsibly, and this simple amendment would extend the code to apply to all uses of data in consumer marketing, and not just the kind that is used to directly target people.
Matt Hancock
What a welcome return to sense from the Opposition. The amendments tabled to clause 77 relate to the definition of direct marketing, which, as defined in the Data Protection Act, is
“the communication (by whatever means) of any advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals.”
The definition captures any advertising or marketing material, not just commercial marketing, which is a point that the hon. Lady made, as well as all promotional material, including material promoting the aims of not-for-profit organisations. It also covers any messages that include some marketing elements, even if that is not the main purpose of the message.
The privacy and electronic communications regulations put direct marketing by electronic means into the scope of the definition, thus making it applicable to telephone calls, both live and automated, faxes, emails, text messages and other forms of electronic communication. It is essential that the definition of direct marketing in the PECR remains aligned with the definition in the Data Protection Act, so that the Information Commissioner’s Office’s powers of enforcement for nuisance calls to remain effective and enforceable in law.
New clause 34 is intended to amend the PECR, to extend to company directors and other officers liability for breaches when those officers have allowed breaches to occur or when breaches have happened because of something they have failed to do. In that way, the Information Commissioner could impose fines on company officers rather than just on companies as at present. The proposal relates to nuisance calls made by organisations. They are a blight on society, causing significant distress to elderly and vulnerable people in particular.
The Chair
It may be helpful for the Minister to know that, because of a miscommunication between Mr Kerr and myself, Mr Kerr will speak to new clause 34 when the Minister sits down, so the Minister may want to save his comments until later. Please continue.
Matt Hancock
I hope that I will still agree with new clause 34 then; I think I will, because I am so enthusiastic about it.
Matt Hancock
I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that, having answered the hon. Lady’s questions in relation to amendments that I think are intended to probe and in anticipation of our coming on to new clause 34, she will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Calum Kerr
I am sorry for the miscommunication; it was my fault. Actually, having read the newspapers at the weekend, I think that the Minister may be in agreement on extending the penalties in relation to nuisance callers to company directors; I certainly read a number of quotes about the importance of doing that. What I am unclear about—perhaps he will enlighten me—is whether he intends to accept our new clause or whether he has another vehicle by which he intends to make this change. I would be grateful to him if he intervened, because there is no point in my—
Matt Hancock
We agree with moving liability on to individuals rather than on to companies, because sometimes those companies will be closed down, bought up and restarted under a different name very quickly. We propose to do that by tabling a Government amendment.
Calum Kerr
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I had thought that I might have done his homework for him already with new clause 34. Perhaps he might consider embracing the cross-party consensual nature that might return after the BBC fun and games—except on tobacco ads, which certainly go too far.
Matt Hancock
Before I was stopped by Mr Streeter, I was going to say precisely that—namely that I have just announced that we intend to introduce such measures. We need to consult on the exact details of those measures, which is why I do not propose to accept the new clause, but we intend to put into place something of similar substance.
Calum Kerr
Excellent. I thank the Minister for that and given that comment, rather than outlining the full case for why I think accepting new clause 34 is a good idea, I will embrace the positivity and happily sit down, without pressing my new clause, knowing that the Government will introduce a similar measure.
Louise Haigh
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Graham Jones
I have a couple of points that I would like the Government to consider on clause stand part and why there is a deficiency, not only in the Bill but in all the other regulations, guidance and advice that support it.
My first point is simply that people the length and breadth of this country are sick and fed up of direct marketing. They are sick and fed up of the back of their doors having a mound of unwanted mail that they have to dispose of, which has come from companies that they have no interest in. I have a high number of empty properties—2,500—in my area, and in some cases this goes beyond being a nuisance and an aggravation, and becomes a fire hazard. We have mounds of direct mail behind the door, and it is never-ending and never stops.
People receive not only physical mail but email. Businesses the length and breadth of Britain—I have made the point that this is not a business-friendly Bill and it should be, as it is a Digital Economy Bill—are sick and fed up of their email boxes being stuffed full of unwanted emails, which are costing them a fortune as they have to put someone on them to go through them. It has got to stop. We have to act as a Parliament, and the Government have got to sit up and take notice. How much is this costing British businesses? How much is it aggravating UK citizens?
These companies seem to get away with it. There is a free-for-all at the minute. There is no way anyone can tell me that a mound of mail does not come through my letterbox weekly or there is not a long sequence of unwanted emails in my inbox, and no one can tell me that companies in my constituency and every other constituency do not face huge costs.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right about that wider point, even though the clause deals particularly with calls. I do not know about him, but I am fed up of receiving calls even in my parliamentary office—I know that other hon. Members have had this—from energy companies, which continually seek to talk to me about energy bills. Does he agree that if the problem is getting to the heart of Parliament, it really is getting out of hand?
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As busy MPs, the last thing we want is to deal with that. I will come to clause 77, which is about marketing calls—all these things are interlinked. As he says, we get a mound of marketing calls, as do businesses. They are piling up, and they are unwanted.
I appeal to the Government to consider introducing mandatory pro formas in all these fields—marketing calls, but also email, direct mail and conventional snail mail. On a letter, I want to see the name and address of the people who sent it, so that I can tick the box saying “no more mail” and stick it back in that red box. I want to know how they have got my information, too. On digital communications, I want to see a pro forma on the bottom that says, “No more. I don’t want to receive any more. How did you get my details, and which company are you?” I want straightforward pro formas on the bottom of all those things. On marketing calls, I want those who are calling to have to explain explicitly who they are and where they got the data from and ask, “Do you wish to proceed with the call?” That would be very helpful. Having pro formas on all that marketing would empower individuals. This is about taking back control and empowering the UK citizen against some of these things, and simple pro formas would go a long way to helping that.
I ask the Government to consider introducing some amelioration or making some concession on this issue on Report. The British people would be eternally grateful to the Minister. He would become legendary in this place. His career path would be stratospheric. He would have helped so many people on a daily basis that he would be remembered forever as the Minister who resolved the issue of direct marketing calls. He has an opportunity to do that. A pro forma would suffice.
I come to a second issue: the exposés that, sadly, all too frequently appear on our television screens, on Channel 4 or “Panorama”. Every now and again, we hear scandals about marketing companies that act on behalf of charities and raise money through telemarketing. Those scandals often reveal undesirable elements and policies in those companies that go against the grain of what it is to be a British citizen. Those marketing calls must be dealt with, and clause 77 fails to deal with—
The Chair
Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that clause 77 is not intended to deal with the kinds of TV issues that he is concerned about. It is concerned with telephone calls, texts and emails.
Graham Jones
Yes. The Minister must look at marketing calls from companies seeking money on behalf of charities. Those scandals must go on no longer. I ask him to address that matter. He could take several measures that do not cause distress but identify the skimming off of huge amounts by those companies, which target easy pickings from the old, the vulnerable and people with dementia. That is unacceptable. Those marketing scandals must not continue.
Mark Menzies
If I may briefly comment with regard to the direct marketing code of practice, I first welcome wholeheartedly the Minister’s desire to accept the terms of new clause 34, proposed by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. This is a blight for all our constituents, regardless of which side of the House we sit on.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Member for Hyndburn made an impassioned plea. I recognise the long-standing interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde in this issue and the work he has done.
Matt Hancock
There is a real Lancashire alliance to ensure people do not get pestered. The clause will place a statutory duty on the Information Commissioner to publish a direct marketing code of practice. I am sure that the Information Commissioner will have heard the plea for a pro forma, which could appear in such statutory guidance.
We all know, from being sent emails that we are not interested in, how powerful it is almost always to have an “unsubscribe” link at the bottom; we can get rid of a lot of junk by clicking that. Nuisance calls continue to blight people’s lives, particularly the vulnerable, who rely on their phones as a main point of contact. So far in 2016, the Information Commissioner’s Office has issued fines totalling £1.5 million to companies behind nuisance marketing. Those firms were responsible for 70 million calls and more than half a million spam text messages. That should give the Committee a feel of the scale of the problem.
We think that the new code will support a reduction in the number of unwanted direct marketing calls by making it easier for the Information Commissioner to take effective action against organisations in breach of the direct marketing code under the Data Protection Act and the privacy and electronic communications regulations. In response to the specific question whether this applies also to snail mail, the answer is yes. The mail preference service to which individuals can subscribe to prevent direct marketing mail already exists but is also covered by the statutory code of practice.
Graham Jones
Does the Minister agree that it would bring not only function but pleasure to have a return mailing address on the front, so that we could take no more and shove this mail back in the red box?
Matt Hancock
I am sure the Information Commissioner will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s plea. There is such logic and force behind it that I am sure it will be taken into account.
Kevin Brennan
We very much support the concession that the Minister made following the evidence session and the amendments tabled. Does he think that anything more could be done where the origin of these calls is overseas, as with very many of them?
Matt Hancock
I propose after consultation to bring in measures to ensure that the liability is on the individual. That will significantly strengthen the hand of the regulator here, alongside the code of practice, but I am open to working with the hon. Gentleman and others to see what else we can do for calls that originate from overseas. I entirely understand the problem. Ultimately, we are trying to stop as much spamming as possible, while allowing people to communicate and use modern means of communication.
Calum Kerr
Last week I had a call from a director from Ofcom, who had just returned from south-east Asia, discussing nuisance calls. As the Government go around the world setting up their new trade agreements, perhaps they might consider this one of the clauses they build in around nuisance calls.
Matt Hancock
That is an interesting suggestion. Of course, this will apply to overseas companies; it is just that, as we have discussed in other parts of the Bill, that is harder to enforce against.
Finally, there was discussion about charities making nuisance calls. Charities, and agents on their behalf, were covered in the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016, which introduced a new regulator specifically for charities in this space. With those explanations, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Commencement
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 182, in clause 82, page 80, line 3, at end insert—
“() section (Power to apply settlement finality regime to payment institutions);”
This provides for new clause NC29 to come into force on royal assent. By convention regulations made under the section inserted by that clause would not be made so as to come into force earlier than two months after royal assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 184.
Government new clause 29—Power to apply settlement finality regime to payment institutions.
Government new clause 30—Bank of England oversight of payment systems.
Government new schedule 2—Bank of England oversight of payment systems.
Government amendment 187.
Matt Hancock
We are committed to creating a more competitive financial services sector. Like many other parts of the Bill, this one covers the private sector. Greater competition in financial services creates better outcomes for consumers and lowers the cost and broadens the range of services available. These measures pave the way for a broader access to payment systems, driving competition in them.
New clause 29 allows the Treasury to extend the benefits of the existing settlement finality regime to non-bank firms that provide payment services, such as Worldpay, through statutory instrument. The existing regulations provide that payments initiated in these systems by banks cannot be unwound if a bank becomes insolvent while it has an unsettled transaction in the system. This is important for the integrity of payment systems, but currently does not extend to payments initiated by non-bank payment institutions, which are a growing part of the financial services system. Extending coverage to transactions initiated by non-bank payment institutions will therefore enable those institutions to obtain direct access to payment systems.
New clause 30 and new schedule 2 amend the Banking Act 2009 so that the Treasury can formally recognise a non-bank payment system for regulatory oversight by the Bank of England. Currently, the Bank of England may only supervise interbank payment systems. Without this change, if a non-bank system were to grow rapidly, the Treasury and the Bank of England would have limited tools to address any financial stability risks stemming from a non-bank system in a timely manner. This is required now, as a systemically important non-bank system is made more likely by broadening access to payment systems, as it creates the conditions that make non-bank systems more likely to grow.
Together, the two measures enable broader access to payment systems. The impact assessments for both are with the Regulatory Policy Committee and we expect them to be non-qualifying on the grounds that they are pro-competition, support financial stability and have a low regulatory burden.
Amendment 182 agreed to.
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 82, page 80, line 14, leave out “section” and insert “sections (Suspension of radio licences for inciting crime or disorder) and”.
This provides for new clause NC28 to come into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 27—Digital additional services: seriously harmful extrinsic material.
Government new clause 28—Suspension of radio licences for inciting crime or disorder.
Matt Hancock
We take very seriously the responsibility to ensure that the broadcasting regulatory framework is as robust as possible. As part of the cross-Government strategy to ensure we are doing all we can to counter the pernicious impact of extremism and extremist narratives, we and Ofcom have carefully assessed whether consumers are fully protected from the most harmful content on TV and radio. That work identified potential anomalies in the current broadcasting legislation, which the amendment and new clauses seek to address.
Ofcom requires broadcasters to hold a licence to broadcast on TV or radio in the UK. The licence regime has developed over time and in response to technological developments. Different licence regimes apply depending on the way in which broadcast content is received.
New clause 27 relates to a subset of Ofcom licences known as digital television additional services licences—in effect, a catch-all for the range of services that do not fall under the more usual licences required to broadcast directly via satellite and cable or the digital television platform. There are two DTAS licenses, or portal channels, which provide viewers using connected or smart TVs on the freeview platform with access to internet-streamed television channels by first going through the electronic program guide.
A potential anomaly we want to address arises because one of the portal channels has begun contracting with internet-streamed channel providers based outside the European economic area, which could potentially give rise to a situation where that internet-streamed channel includes seriously harmful content without Ofcom or any other regulator having recourse to act. I want to absolutely clear that there is no suggestion that any of the current DTAS licensees would purposefully provide access to seriously harmful content, but I am sure the Committee will agree that having that happen inadvertently, and finding regulators are unable to act, is not a position we would like to be in. The amendment puts it beyond doubt that Ofcom is able to set conditions to act.
New clause 28 concerns radio. At present, there is a limitation in Ofcom’s ability quickly to deal with the exceptional circumstance of a terrestrial radio station, whether analogue or digital, repeatedly broadcasting harmful material that incites listeners to crime or disorder. We are acting to prevent such an outcome.
Amendment 183 agreed to.
Amendment made: 184, in clause 82, page 80, line 14, at end insert—
“() section (Bank of England oversight of payment systems) and Schedule (Bank of England oversight of payment systems).”—(Matt Hancock.)
The amendment provides for the new clause and Schedule about the Bank of England’s oversight of payment systems (NC30 and NS2) to come into force 2 months after Royal Assent.
Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Extent
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 185, in clause 83, page 80, line 31, at end insert—
‘( ) Section (Qualifications in information technology: payment of tuition fees) extends to England and Wales only.”
This amendment is consequential on NC26.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 26—Qualifications in information technology: payment of tuition fees.
Government amendment 186.
Matt Hancock
This is one of the clauses I am most excited about. We are committed to public investment in skills and learning to ensure everyone has the chance to master the basic skills required to get on in life and work. We are very clear that, in addition to numeracy and literacy, that now includes digital. Our workplaces and homes are increasingly integrated with digital technologies, so we are clear that a sound grasp of basic digital skills is as important as numeracy and literacy.
Too many adults are unable effectively to use the digital technologies that allow them to keep in touch with friends and family, find the cheapest offers for goods and services, search for jobs online and work effectively and productively in those jobs. All too often, the digitally excluded come from the least advantaged parts of our society—the less well paid, the older and the more geographically remote. We are committed to making society work for everyone, and we take the issue of digital exclusion very seriously. That is why we intend, in this amendment, to create a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that, where specified, digital skills qualifications are made available by providers and that they are free of charge to people aged 19 and over who need them and do not already have the relevant qualification.
This duty will measure the duties for maths and English provision for adults. The justification is clear: people who can effectively use digital technology pay less for goods and services, save time on routine tasks, can more easily connect with society and can attract a wage premium in the labour market. We want to enhance social mobility and give everyone the opportunity to acquire the skills they need to succeed in the modern workplace.
Louise Haigh
We very much welcome the new clause and are pleased that, once again, the Government have heeded the Opposition’s advice. We said clearly at the beginning of the process that, in regard to the digital skills that are needed to support and improve the digital economy, the Bill was lacking. I want to put on record the fantastic work already going on across the UK in supporting adults to learn digital skills, not least by organisations such as the Tinder Foundation and community organisations—I will abuse my position now and reference organisations such as the Heeley Development Trust and Heeley City Farm in my constituency, which through community work already skill up adults in digital skills. We very much support the clause and look forward to the Government taking our advice more in the future.
Amendment 183 agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 26
Qualifications in information technology: payment of tuition fees
‘(1) The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 88(1) (qualifications for persons aged 19 or over: payment of tuition fees), for “1(a) or (b)” substitute “1(a), (b) or (ba)”.
(3) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 (qualifications for persons aged 19 or over), after paragraph (b) insert—
(ba) a specified qualification in making use of information technology;”.
(4) After paragraph 5 of that Schedule insert—
“Power to specify qualification in information technology
5A The level of attainment demonstrated by a specified qualification in making use of information technology must be the level which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is the minimum required in that respect by persons aged 19 or over in order to be able to operate effectively in day-to-day life.”’—(Matt Hancock.)
This clause creates an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that courses of study for qualifications in information technology are free of charge for persons in England aged 19 or over. The qualifications will be specified in regulations under Schedule 5 to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 27
Digital additional services: seriously harmful extrinsic material
After section 24 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (digital additional services) insert—
“24A Duty to prevent access to seriously harmful extrinsic material
(1) In carrying out their functions, OFCOM must do all that they consider appropriate to prevent digital additional services from enabling members of the public to access seriously harmful extrinsic material.
(2) “Seriously harmful extrinsic material”, in relation to a digital additional service, means material that—
(a) is not included in the service, and
(b) appears to OFCOM—
(i) to have the potential to cause serious harm, or
(ii) to be likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder.”’ —(Matt Hancock.)
This new clause would require OFCOM to seek to prevent digital television additional services enabling access to seriously harmful content that does not form part of the service, for instance by linking to content streamed from the internet. OFCOM could do this by imposing licence conditions in relation to such services.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 28
Suspension of radio licences for inciting crime or disorder
‘(1) In Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (sound broadcasting services), for section 111B (power to suspend licence to provide satellite service) substitute—
“111B Suspension of licences for inciting crime or disorder
(1) OFCOM must serve a notice under subsection (2) on the holder of a licence granted under this Chapter if they are satisfied that—
(a) the licence holder has included in the licensed service one or more programmes containing material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder,
(b) in doing so the licence holder has failed to comply with a condition included in the licence in compliance with section 263 of the Communications Act 2003, and
(c) the failure would justify the revocation of the licence.
(2) A notice under this subsection must—
(a) state that OFCOM are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1),
(b) specify the respects in which, in their opinion, the licence holder has failed to comply with the condition mentioned there,
(c) state that OFCOM may revoke the licence after the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served on the licence holder, and
(d) inform the licence holder of the right to make representations to OFCOM in that period about the matters that appear to OFCOM to provide grounds for revoking the licence.
(3) The effect of a notice under subsection (2) is to suspend the licence from the time when the notice is served on the licence holder until either—
(a) the revocation of the licence takes effect, or
(b) OFCOM decide not to revoke the licence.
(4) If, after considering any representations made to them by the licence holder in the 21 day period mentioned in subsection (2)(c), OFCOM are satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to revoke the licence, they must serve on the licence holder a notice revoking the licence.
(5) The revocation of a licence by a notice under subsection (4) takes effect from whatever time is specified in the notice.
(6) That time must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice under subsection (4) is served on the licence holder.
(7) Section 111 does not apply to the revocation of a licence under this section.”
(2) In section 62(10) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (application of sections 109 and 111 of the 1990 Act to digital sound programme services) for the words from “section 109” to “1990 Act” substitute “sections 109, 111 and 111B of the 1990 Act (enforcement)”.
(3) In section 250(3) of the Communications Act 2003 (application of sections 109 to 111A of the 1990 Act to radio licensable content services) for “111A” substitute “111B”.’—(Matt Hancock.)
This new Clause gives OFCOM power to suspend immediately, and subsequently revoke, the licence of any licensed radio service if material is included that is likely to encourage or incite crime or lead to disorder. It replaces a power applying only to satellite and cable services.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 29
Power to apply settlement finality regime to payment institutions
In Part 24 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (insolvency) after section 379 insert—
‘Settlement Finality
“379A Power to apply settlement finality regime to payment institutions
(1) The Treasury may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for the application to payment institutions, as participants in payment or securities settlement systems, of provision in subordinate legislation—
(a) modifying the law of insolvency or related law in relation to such systems, or
(b) relating to the securing of rights and obligations.
(2) “Payment institution” means—
(a) an authorised payment institution or small payment institution within the meaning of the Payment Services Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/209), or
(b) a person whose head office, registered office or place of residence, as the case may be, is outside the United Kingdom and whose functions correspond to those of an institution within paragraph (a).
(3) “Payment or securities settlement system” means arrangements between a number of participants for or in connection with the clearing or execution of instructions by participants relating to any of the following—
(a) the placing of money at the disposal of a recipient;
(b) the assumption or discharge of a payment obligation;
(c) the transfer of the title to, or an interest in, securities.
(4) “Subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.
(5) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make consequential, supplemental or transitional provision;
(b) amend subordinate legislation.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”’—(Matt Hancock.)
The inserted section enables the Treasury to apply a settlement finality regime to payment institutions. The current settlement finality regime for payment systems and securities settlement systems is in the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) Regulations 1999 (S.I 1999/2979).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 30
Bank of England oversight of payment systems
“Schedule (Bank of England oversight of payment systems) extends Part 5 of the Banking Act 2009 (Bank of England oversight of inter-bank payment systems) to other payment systems; and makes consequential provision.”—(Matt Hancock.)
The new clause introduces new Schedule NS2 which extends the Bank of England’s oversight of payment systems, by removing the current restriction that limits the Bank’s oversight to systems for payments between financial institutions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Strategic review of sharing telecommunications infrastructure
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a strategic review of the sharing of telecommunications infrastructure and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.
(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider measures to maximise the sharing of telecommunications infrastructure by telecommunications service providers.’—(Calum Kerr.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Strategic review of mobile network coverage—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a strategic review of mobile network coverage and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.
(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider measures to ensure universal mobile network coverage for residences and businesses across all telecommunications providers.
(3) The review under subsection (1) shall also consider measures to ensure savings made by telecommunication providers under sections (4), (5) and (6) of this Act are reinvested into expanding network coverage.’
Calum Kerr
We seem to have raced through this final section, for which I commend all right hon. and hon. Members. We do not need the gift of foresight to know that the Minister will tell me, “We do not do reviews in this Government. We expect someone else to do them for us.” Let me briefly explain why I support new clause 1, which I will not press to a vote, and I will then touch on new clause 20.
We heard an excellent articulation in the evidence sessions of the value of third-party infrastructure as an effective means of maximising communication roll-out across the country. Today, about a third of the UK’s 27,000 masts are independently operated, and that contrasts with about 60% of masts globally. In EU countries, it is 80%. Independent analysis has shown that independently operated towers across Europe and North America host at least twice as many masts as when those towers are operated by the mobile companies themselves. As we map a new digital future—we are all excited to see what the new Minister does with his digital strategy for the country—we should be conscious of the fact that we will need a lot more masts. We know that he knows that. Technology such as 5G is higher frequency and covers shorter distances. Unless we want our country to resemble the back of a hedgehog, we need to look at effective ways of minimising the number of masts while maximising the coverage we need.
With the approach in the new clause, we are looking to encourage the Government to be consciously competent and to come forward with a model or measures that will enhance the further deployment of shared infrastructure, so that as we deploy 5G and embrace the technology of the future, we minimise the impact on our environment.
New clause 20 is certainly a different take on this area. It is well meaning but not quite right, to be honest. I do not think the idea of a universal service applies in the same way for mobile as it does for wired. It is probably something we will evolve to as the worlds of wired and wireless networks intertwine and overlap going forward. I would be happy to support the new clause, but I would welcome some more discussion.
I hope the Government and the new Minister and team recognise that third-party infrastructure will be central to driving the coverage model in rural and urban areas as we look to put a lot more masts out there to deliver the potential speeds and capability of the technology in the future. If the Minister will not give me a review, perhaps he will at least throw me a bone or two that things are beyond, “Hopefully the Select Committee will do a review.” The Select Committee has only so much bandwidth to do it.
Matt Hancock
I can do better than merely asking the Select Committee, although I do think that Select Committees do important reports and should not be denigrated. Ofcom has also been given a statutory duty to provide a report to the Secretary of State every three years on the state of the UK’s communications infrastructure, including the extent to which UK networks share infrastructure. That is precisely what the new clause asks for as a one-off. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reports will happen regularly. The next three-yearly report is due in 2017, which is the same time that new clause 1 specifies for its review.
Moving on to new clause 20, we recognise the importance of improving mobile coverage. I support the intention behind it, but I do not think a statutory review is necessary at this time. We already have building blocks in place to deliver extensive mobile connectivity, and it is happening. The changes that we have debated today will give Ofcom the ability to provide data to ensure that we know how effective mobile connectivity is. We have legally binding licence obligations to ensure that each mobile operator provides voice coverage to at least 90% of the UK land mass. Taken together, 98% of the UK will have a mobile signal by the end of 2017, according to the agreements.
Louise Haigh
Does the Minister envisage, then, that Ofcom will gather data to produce reports on the extent of mobile coverage against the Government targets set with mobile network operators?
Matt Hancock
I do expect that. I can confirm my expectation that that is what Ofcom will do.
Louise Haigh
How often does the Minister expect Ofcom to produce those reports?
Matt Hancock
We just changed the rules so that instead of being restricted to producing such reports three times a year, Ofcom can do so whenever it thinks it appropriate. That will provide for Ofcom to be able to do so as much as possible, but I committed earlier today to having a connected nations report before the end of this year. I hope that that provides for what the hon. Lady seeks in new clause 20 and that the hon. Members will not press their new clauses.
Calum Kerr
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Graham Stuart.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2016 - (27 Oct 2016)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 12, page 10, line 10, leave out “6” and insert “3”
This amendment would reduce the length of time that an acquiring authority can take temporary possession of land.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Amendment 31 would reduce the length of time that an acquiring authority can take temporary possession of land for. It is very similar to amendment 30, in that it aims to provide a degree more certainty for owners about what temporary possession means. At present, the Bill states that the amount of time that an owner—defined as having either a freehold or leasehold interest in the land—can limit temporary possession to by means of a counter-notice is 12 months where the land is or is part of a dwelling and six years in any other case, or else the acquiring authority must take further action.
The amendment would allow owners to limit the amount of time that land can be temporarily possessed, where it is not a dwelling, to three rather than six years. Our position reflects that of the Compulsory Purchase Association, which said in evidence,
“we feel that, for freehold owners, six years is too long. Three years as a maximum is better. Notwithstanding that, the ability to serve counter-notices is correct and encouraging to development.”
I want to stress that point to the Minister. It is not the counter-notice period as such that we have a problem with, but the length of it. The CPA went on:
“Six years is quite a long period. If a business is dispossessed of its property for six years, that is effectively almost as good as a permanent dispossession”.––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 66, Q117.]
If a business is away from its premises for six years, it will essentially have to completely restart the business somewhere else. One would assume that it will feel much more like a permanent relocation if it is away in excess of five years.
The IPD UK lease events review 2015, which was sponsored by Strutt and Parker and the British Property Federation, pointed to short-term leases of five years or less being particularly desirable for smaller commercial leases, stating:
“Flexibility remains key for many tenants, despite the lengthening of commercial leases, with 73% of total leases signed so far in 2015 for a term of between one and five years.”
Allowing counter-notices to be served that limit temporary possession to three years, rather than six, relates more directly to the reality of a lease’s lifespan, particularly for a small business. The whole point here is that if a lot of leases are five years in length and businesses are required to move for six years, it is very likely that a substantial number of those businesses will have lost the lease on the original premises and had to take out a lease on wherever they relocate to, for five years or even longer.
We are trying to find out why the length of time is being set at six years. What research did the Government do to come up with that period? Have they any plans to meet the CPA or representatives of small businesses who may be particularly affected by the measures in clause 12? Do they have any plans to review how the clause is operating in practice, and particularly whether it is producing problems for small businesses?
The Minister will probably say that only a small number of businesses would be affected by the relevant type of compulsory purchase, that the balance is right and that the provision should therefore remain. I am sure he is right that the clause will not be used in many instances. Nevertheless it is a critical matter for the businesses that are affected. We would not want the clause to result in businesses moving from a high street or an important position in the community and not being able to come back, so that there would be blight further down the line. I hope that the Minister has got the drift of our argument.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bone.
The amendment is entirely legitimate as a way of probing why the Government have arrived at the figure in question. It may help if I explain the purpose of clause 12 before I discuss the amendment, because some of the provisions will, I think, help to reassure members of the Committee.
The Government recognise that in certain circumstances taking temporary possession of land may be at least as disruptive as permanent acquisition. Clause 12 therefore provides an important additional safeguard to protect the interests of those whose land is subject to temporary possession. I say “additional” because any proposal for temporary possession of land must be authorised in the same way as compulsory purchase.
Clause 12(2) allows the owner of a freehold, or a leaseholder with the right to occupation, to serve a counter-notice requiring the authority to limit the period of possession to 12 months for a dwelling or six years for other land. That ability to serve a counter-notice on implementation of temporary possession is a further check and balance, in addition to scrutiny during the confirmation process.
Under clause 12(3) leaseholders—who are, I think, the people in whom the hon. Member for City of Durham was particularly interested—will also have the option to serve a counter-notice providing that the acquiring authority may not take temporary possession of their interest in the land at all. In those circumstances the acquiring authority must either do without the land or acquire the leasehold interest permanently.
Where a counter-notice is served under clause 12(2) the acquiring authority will have to decide whether the limited possession period sought by the landowner is workable for the acquiring authority at that time, or whether permanent possession is necessary. Alternatively, the acquiring authority may conclude that it does not need to take temporary possession of the land in question; for example, it might alter its construction plans.
Where the acquiring authority opts for acquisition of the land, subsection (9) provides for the standard material detriment provisions to apply. That means that if only part of a person’s land is acquired, but the retained land would be less useful or valuable as a result of part of the land being acquired, a further counter-notice may be served requiring the authority to purchase all the land.
I hope that the Committee can see that there are a number of safeguards, including time limits that can be placed on periods of temporary possession of a leasehold interest; I think that that is the issue about which the Opposition are particularly concerned. It is possible to say, in that case, “If it is going to be for that length of time we do not want temporary possession at all, and you either need to take permanent possession or do nothing at all.” Also, if possession is taken of part of a site and that will have an impact on the rest of the site, there are provisions to require the whole site to be taken.
The amendment, as the hon. Lady explained, would limit the period of temporary possession of land not occupied by dwellings to three years, rather than the six specified in the Bill. I entirely appreciate why she tabled the amendment; it was, I think, out of a determination, which I share, to ensure that those whose land is subject to temporary possession are properly protected.
The limit of six years is designed to give those affected greater certainty about the total period that non-dwelling land can be subject to temporary possession. Restricting the temporary possession period to three years would limit the usefulness of this new power and may drive acquiring authorities down the route of compulsory purchase in certain circumstances where that would be unnecessary. There are some schemes—one example not too far from us here is the Thames Tideway tunnel—where the temporary possession of land has been required for longer periods than the three years in the amendment.
There needs to be a balance between giving acquiring authorities the power they need to deliver their schemes and ensuring that the interests of those whose land is taken on a temporary basis are protected. The Government believe that six years strikes the right balance. In many cases the temporary possession will be for far less than six years. In the case of the Thames Tideway tunnel, the maximum length of temporary possession is eight years, so the acquiring authority would have to decide to permanently acquire the land.
As the Bill continues its progress through Parliament, I am happy to consider any evidence that Opposition Members or interested parties are able to provide that suggests the six-year figure does not achieve the correct balance. I can also reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham that even if the legislation is passed in its current form, the Government will keep the time limit under review as the new power begins to take effect, because the regulation-making power in clause 19 would allow us to make changes to the time limit without having to come back to the House with further primary legislation.
I hope I have given significant reassurance. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
The Chair
The Minister has kindly set out what clause 12 is all about, so there will be no separate stand part debate. If anyone wants to speak on stand part, now is the time to do it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his largely helpful response. It is useful to point out that a counter-notice can try to remove possession being taken at all. It is quite a drastic measure to ask local businesses to enter into a lengthy and difficult process. However, it is worth stressing that that option is open to them, as is trying to suggest that possession should be for only a part of the site. Again, that could be helpful.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about reducing the total period of temporary possession to three years. I am very pleased that the Minister said he would keep that under review. He did not address the fact that a lot of leases for businesses are five years, and that requiring them to move for six years is effectively a permanent removal to a new location for them. However, I heard what the Minister said about keeping the matter under review and seeking evidence from people who have a specific interest in this area. It was a very helpful response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Refusal to give up possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
The clauses deal with compensation and other matters related to the temporary possession power. Clause 13 is relatively straightforward. It ensures that where someone refuses to give up possession of the land, the acquiring authority can take steps to gain possession by ensuring that the existing enforcement provisions for compulsory acquisition cases, which enable an acquiring authority to use a sheriff or officer of the court to enforce possession by a warrant, also apply to temporary possession cases.
Clauses 14 to 16 set out how the compensation provisions will work to ensure that those whose land is subject to temporary possession are fairly compensated for the disruption caused. Clause 14 provides that the claimants will be entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that they sustain as a result of the temporary possession. The compensation payable will reflect the rental value of the leasehold interest in the land. Where the claimant is operating a trade or business on the land, they will be entitled to compensation for disturbance of that trade or business.
Dr Blackman-Woods
How will the Secretary of State know that he has to give a direction, in a particular case, about what temporary possession can be used for?
Gavin Barwell
I imagine—although I will happily write to the hon. Lady if inspiration arises subsequently suggesting that I have got this wrong—that it would be a situation in which a dispute had arisen about the use that the land was put to and where there was a question of whether that would have an effect on the long-term interests of someone on the land. The casework would end up on the Secretary of State’s desk and give him the power to make a ruling to that effect. If there are other points that I have not mentioned, I will write to the hon. Lady and members of the Committee to clarify.
Clause 20 simply provides meanings for some of the words used in the earlier temporary possession clauses. Finally, clause 21 provides that the temporary possession power can be exercised in relation to Crown land, subject to the acquiring authority obtaining the consent of the appropriate authority.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I repeat my declaration of interest as a member of Oldham Council, as on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am asking for clarity, because the measure states that compensation will be made for the period of occupation or possession of the land, and that subsequent compensatory payments will be made for any loss or injury suffered. In one possible scenario, however, if farmland was taken possession of, unforeseen costs might be incurred. For example, if the planting season occurred before occupation, a poor harvest might be the result of occupation, so how would the compensation payment work in such circumstances?
Gavin Barwell
Again, it is better that I write to the hon. Gentleman, rather than giving an answer on the spot. I guess he is asking about when some detriment has been done to the long-term interest in the land by the period of temporary occupation and how that is catered for.
Gavin Barwell
Exactly; if it is discovered afterwards. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to answer his point, rather than speculating now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
No-scheme principle
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 23 to 30 stand part.
New clause 13—Review of compulsory purchase—
(1) Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the entire compulsory purchase order process.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the entire compulsory purchase order process.
Gavin Barwell
I will now run through the remaining compulsory purchase measures in the Bill. Clause 22 is the key measure of all the CPO measures in the Bill. It wipes the slate clean of more than 100 years of sometimes conflicting statute and case law about how compensation should be assessed, and it establishes a clear, new statutory framework for doing so.
The core principle of compulsory purchase compensation, which is not altered by the Bill, is that the land should be acquired at market value in the absence of the scheme underlying the compulsory purchase. Any increase or decrease in land values arising from the scheme is therefore disregarded for the purposes of assessing compensation.
The problem is that since the “no-scheme world” principle was first established, it has been interpreted in a number of complex and sometimes contradictory ways. That lack of clarity can make negotiations over the level of compensation difficult, resulting in unnecessary delays. The clause will therefore clarify the position by creating a statutory no-scheme principle and setting out a series of clear rules to establish the methodology of valuation in the no-scheme world.
The clause will also extend the definition of the scheme to include relevant transport projects where they have made the regeneration or redevelopment scheme that is the subject of the compulsory purchase possible. I will say more about that later. The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will not go through the clause line by line, but focus on a few key points.
Subsection (3) will replace sections 6 to 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which set out how the scheme is to be disregarded when assessing compensation. Proposed section 6A in the Land Compensation Act will maintain the fundamental principle that any increases or decreases in value caused by the scheme, or the prospect of the scheme, should be disregarded, and lists the assumptions to be made. If there is a dispute about compensation and the parties have to go to the Upper Tribunal to resolve it, proposed section 6D clarifies how to identify the scheme that must be disregarded.
The default position is set out in proposed section 6D(1): that the scheme to be disregarded means the scheme of development underlying the compulsory acquisition—usually the current compulsory purchase order. If an acquiring authority wants to assert to the Tribunal that a scheme to be disregarded covers a larger area than the underlying scheme of development, it can do so only if that was identified at the outset in the authorising instrument or associated documents, when the acquiring authority started the compulsory purchase process. I hope that is clear.
In proposed section 6D(2) we have replicated the current special provisions for new towns and urban development areas. This special status means that all development within these designated areas forms part of the scheme to be disregarded, so the value of later acquisitions within a new town area will not be influenced by earlier developments within that area. We have extended this special provision to mayoral development areas as well.
We have also made special provision where regeneration or redevelopment schemes have been made possible only by relevant transport projects. I said I would say a few more words about this. New transport projects will often raise land values around nodes or hubs—HS2 is a good example. Where that makes regeneration or redevelopment attractive, but the private sector is unable to bring a scheme forward, public authorities might have to step in by using their compulsory purchase powers to help bring forward the regeneration.
In those circumstances, when assessing the compensation that people might receive if their property is acquired through compulsion by a public authority, the regeneration or redevelopment scheme will be able to include the relevant transport projects as part of the scheme to be disregarded in the no-scheme world. This is a complicated area of law, so let me try to make it as clear as possible. What that means is that the land will be valued without the uplift caused by the public investment in the transport project. This is one of only two bits in the Bill that change the compensation people might get if some of their property is subject to compulsory purchase.
The provision is subject to some very important safeguards to ensure that it is proportionate and fair to all. They are as follows. The prospect of regeneration or redevelopment must have been included in the initial published justification for the relevant transport project. In other words, an acquiring authority could not come along to a piece of land that had been improved by a transport project 20 or 30 years ago, when no mention of this redevelopment happened, and use this legislation to try to drive down the price of compensation. The instrument authorising the compulsory acquisition must have been made or prepared in draft on, or after, the day on which this provision comes into force. The regeneration or redevelopment scheme must be in the vicinity of the relevant transport project. The relevant transport project must be open for use no earlier than five years after this provision comes into force—they must not be existing schemes. Any compulsory purchase for regeneration or redevelopment must be authorised within five years of the relevant transport project first coming into use.
Importantly, if the owner acquired the land after plans for the relevant transport project were announced, but before 8 September 2016—the date on which we announced we were going to do this—the underlying scheme will not be treated as though it included the relevant transport project. In other words, the provision should not be retrospective for people who acquired the land before they might have known the Government were going to change the law in this way.
I recognise that extending the definition of the scheme in this way will mean that some claimants receive less compensation than might otherwise have been the case. However, I hope that the Committee shares my view that it is right that the public, rather than private interests, benefit from public investment into major transport projects. Having increased neighbouring land values by providing new or improved transport links, the public sector should not then have to pay more when acquiring land for subsequent development that was envisaged when that transport project was announced, and would not otherwise have been possible. The provision will ensure that the public purse does not have to pay the landowner land values inflated by previous investment that the public sector has already made.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his helpful run-through of the CPO clauses in the Bill. I have a couple of specific questions about clause 22, but I want to say at the outset that those are probing questions because we agree with the overall thrust of the clause. I think that the Minister has taken some tentative steps down the road of socialism in protecting the public interest in the way that might happen under the clause. We absolutely agree with the broad intention of the clause. It is right that it applies to new towns and mayoral developments, and to an extent to transport, to try to facilitate, in particular, the larger scale development that is very much needed. Nevertheless, there are a few questions about how compensation will be decided under proposed section 6D(2) to (4), which is what my questions specifically relate to. At the moment it does not look as though any claims under the proposed section can be referred to the Upper Tribunal. If that is not the correct interpretation, perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
We know that the no-scheme principle is central to a fair assessment of compensation and that the scope of the disregarded scheme must be appropriate so that proper compensation is paid. The Government have included proposed section 6D(5) under clause 22 to safeguard the public purse in circumstances where it is appropriate to disregard a wider scheme. Where the appropriateness of doing so is challenged, the Upper Tribunal is empowered to determine the matter. Can the Minister explain what safeguards exist where a scheme is extended instead under proposed section 6D(2) to (4), where the recourse to the Upper Tribunal does not exist and all qualifying schemes, regardless of merit or circumstances, will be extended as a matter of law? I am sure that he has sensible reasons for including them but, to ensure that there is confidence out there in the development sector, we might need to hear a little more about why that is the case—if indeed it is the case.
Does the Minister agree that, as desirable as it is to recover the benefits of public investment, such recovery should be made from all those who benefit and should not discriminate against those who are already bearing the impact of losing their homes or businesses to make way for the scheme? The extension of the scope of the scheme in proposed section 6D(2) to (4) without any appeal or consideration of the facts of a case means that there could be injustice to homeowners and small businesses as well as investors and developers that own land affected by such schemes. It goes beyond ensuring fair compensation, which is assured by proposed section 6D(5).
My point is that the Government must avoid poorly targeted policies to recover the benefit of public investment and must introduce separately a properly considered mechanism that might build on existing schemes such as the tax incremental funding and community infrastructure levy schemes, which properly focus the recovery of value from past and future public investment.
Those are my questions for the Minister. As I have said, we agree very much with the basic provisions of clause 22, but there is perhaps a need to put something else into the public record about why they are being introduced in the way they are. Perhaps he should look at the limitations for appeal under proposed section 6D(2) to (4). Does he think anything more needs to be done, or will the scheme as outlined put in place appropriate safeguards for those who might be concerned about the extension of the wider scheme, in particular, and the extension to transport? Overall, we can see the rationale for the Government wanting to do that.
I move on to new clause 13. We have had a helpful discussion about CPO. We had a rather lengthier discussion about CPO during the passage of what is now the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I also looked at CPO powers under the previous Government’s Infrastructure Act 2015. Having recognised that CPO powers and the legislation underpinning them are very complex, we are in danger of the Government going on with the process of simply amending CPO powers and tinkering with the system, making it more complex, I suspect, rather than less. However, there seems to be a view across all parties that we need to review this in its entirety and bring forward a much more consolidated and rationalised piece of legislation that will be much easier for local authorities and developers to get their heads around.
Unfortunately, I do not have with me the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The last time I asked the Government to introduce a piece of consolidated legislation on permitted development, I did not think I was going to get 167 pages in return, plus an additional 12 pages a couple of months ago, separate from that order, so I have some anxieties in proposing this new clause.
CPO legislation goes back a very long way—I think to 1845, with parts of that legislation still used—and it might be about time to think of consolidating it. We are not the only ones to think so. Colin Cottage from the CPA—which is the Compulsory Purchase Association, not the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, although that might have an interest in CPO—told the Committee:
“The existing system is not helpful for reaching quick solutions. In fact, in many ways it encourages people to be fighting with each other from the outset. Ultimately, that increases the uncertainty, conflict and cost. That is really the issue that we have to look to address in order to give ourselves a more streamlined system.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 64, Q114.]
Richard Asher from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors said:
“I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward. I think the simplification of the rules for CPO would be a major step forward…I think the complexity often deters people—particularly local authorities, in my experience—from using CPO powers. It also results in a number of CPOs being refused or rejected by the courts because of the complexity of the rules that surround them.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 63, Q114.]
If ever there were an argument for simplifying, rationalising, streamlining and consolidating a bit of legislation, surely it is that the courts, simply because they are finding the legislation too difficult and complex, are throwing out what might be bona fide requests for a CPO.
Gavin Barwell
I will begin by answering some of the hon. Lady’s detailed questions and then come on to the principles behind the amendment. I think she had three questions; I was not quite clear on the first, so I will deal with the other two and then see if I understood the first question correctly.
The hon. Lady’s third question was about ensuring that everybody benefits from an uplift in land values as a result of Government public investment in the scheme and that there is a way of capturing back some of that uplift. To a degree, she answered her own question: under current policy, CIL is the main mechanism by which we seek to capture some of the uplift when development is given, so that a contribution can be made to necessary improvements within a community area, a new infrastructure or whatever is required. She will be aware that I have on my desk a review by Liz Peace and her team of CIL and issues relating to section 106 contributions. We are considering that review and will respond to it in our White Paper later this year. The hon. Lady’s point that it is legitimate for the state to capture some of that uplift is absolutely valid; we need to think about the best mechanism for doing that.
I believe that the hon. Lady’s second question was on arguments about the definition of the scheme, what it constituted and whether the upper tribunal had a role. Have I understood her correctly?
Dr Blackman-Woods
It was whether the widening of the scheme under proposed section 6D(2) to (4) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 could be referred to the upper tribunal under proposed section 6D(5).
Gavin Barwell
The answer is a simple yes. Proposed new section 6D(5) states:
“If there is a dispute as to what is to be taken to be the scheme…then, for the purposes of this section, the underlying scheme is to be identified by the Upper Tribunal”,
so the answer is a simple yes.
I think the hon. Lady’s first question was about the wider role of the upper tribunal in dealing with compensation disputes. She was concerned that there were some other areas that could not go to the upper tribunal. We believe the answer is that they can, but I may not have captured her question correctly. Would she reiterate in which particular cases she was worried that people could not go to the upper tribunal?
Dr Blackman-Woods
It was the schemes referred to in proposed new section 6D(2) to (4), and whether compensation arrangements could be determined under proposed new section 6D(5).
Gavin Barwell
The answer is a definite yes.
If Mr Bone is feeling particularly generous, he might let me answer hon. Members’ earlier questions, but he may prefer me to write to them rather than going back to a previous debate.
Gavin Barwell
Inspiration has arrived. Clause 19 gives the power to make regulations limiting or making particular provision about temporary possession; the hon. Member for City of Durham asked for some guidance about how those powers might be used. The Government’s thinking is that it could be about particular types of land, such as open spaces, commons or National Trust land. We might want to give particular thought to classes of land in which the provisions might not apply.
In the agricultural example given by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, the losses would be assessed as a claim for loss or injury under clause 14(2), so the answer is that it is covered. Thank you for allowing me to clarify those two matters, Mr Bone.
I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham. As we touched on in an earlier debate, the evidence we heard showed that there was definitely a strong desire out there for simplification of the CPO rules. We believe that the Bill contributes to that, particularly by clarifying in statute how the no-scheme world principle works, but also by removing the uncertainty that I referred to about people’s ability to come back and make subsequent claims for compensation based on subsequent planning applications. There are definitely measures in the Bill that deliver some of the simplification that people want, but the hon. Lady is right that some people who gave us evidence said that maybe we need a fundamental rethink of the whole thing. I certainly do not have a closed mind on that.
The Law Commission has looked at this area of law. To a degree, what the Government did in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and what they are doing in this Bill reflects the advice of the Law Commission. Compulsory purchase is probably an area on which it is easier to say, “We need a fundamental reform,” than to develop consensus on what that fundamental reform should be. I am certainly not opposed to that in principle.
What I would like to do, if the Committee is agreeable, is to implement these reforms, around which there is a good degree of consensus. Let us see what impact they have on speeding up CPOs; hopefully they will make it easier for people to use and undertake them. At that point, we can consider the hon. Lady’s suggestion. There is something that I do not like doing, although I accept that I may be in a slightly different position from other members of the Committee. I have become very conscious, in just the three months I have been doing this job, of how easy it is for Parliament to write into legislation, “The Government must review this” and “The Government must review that.” A huge amount of civil service time is then taken up with undertaking those reviews.
We keep all our policies under review and based on the evidence all the time. However, something that has been said to me consistently by people across the housing world—large developers, smaller developers, people working in local authority planning departments and housing associations—is that people are looking for consistency of policy. Therefore, my ambition, if possible, is to set out in the White Paper a strategy for how we can get the country building the number of homes that we need, to listen to what people have to say in response to the White Paper and to implement it. I would then like to try—this is an ambitious thing for a politician to say—to have a period of policy stability during which we get on and implement the strategy that we have set out, rather than introducing changes every single year.
I do not want to be unsympathetic to the hon. Lady because her new clause just reflects the fact that some people have said, “Could we look at a more radical thing on CPO?” If, over time, there were a growing consensus about how that might be done, I would not close my ears to it. However, I do not want to write into this legislation a statutory requirement on the Government to conduct such a review when I am clear that my officials will have a huge piece of work on their hands dealing with the White Paper and the responses to it, and then implementing the strategy. I hope that I have explained my position without being in any way unsympathetic to the principle of the hon. Lady’s point.
The Chair
It might be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members to understand a couple of technical things that happened there. First, we are appreciative of the Minister going back to earlier matters. It is my belief that it is better to have answers given on the record, rather than by letter.
The second point is that new clause 13 has been spoken to in this group because it is about CPO, but it is not being moved at this stage, so it cannot be withdrawn. It will be up to the shadow Minister whether she wants to move that clause when we reach it later. As nobody else wishes to speak, we can move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 23 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Financial provisions
Gavin Barwell
I will try to be brief. Clauses 31 to 33 make standard provision in relation to expenditure incurred, consequential provision that can be made and any regulations that may be passed by virtue of the provisions in the Bill.
Clause 31 provides spending authorisation for any expenditure incurred in consequence of the Bill. That is necessary, for example, in relation to the provisions in part 2, which provide for the circumstances where public authorities may be liable to pay compensation—and, in some cases, interest on that compensation—to persons who have an interest in or a right to occupy land that is compulsorily acquired or subject to temporary possession.
Clause 32 confers a power on the Secretary of State to make such consequential provision as is considered appropriate for the purposes of the Bill. A number of consequential changes are made by the Bill, including those flowing from: the addition of a new procedure for modifying neighbourhood plans; the changes to restrict the imposition of planning conditions; and the amendments to compulsory purchase legislation. Despite aiming for perfection, it is possible that not all such consequential changes have been identified. As such, it is prudent for the Bill to contain a power to deal in secondary legislation with any further necessary amendments that come to light.
Clause 33 makes provision for the parliamentary procedure that applies to any regulations made under any delegated powers set out in the Bill. The majority of delegated powers in the Bill will be subject to the negative procedure, but there are two exceptions. First, any regulations made under clause 19(1) that set out further provision in relation to temporary possession—the hon. Lady asked me about this, and inspiration arrived to answer her—will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is because the nature of the power to take temporary possession, which interferes with property rights, and the public interest in compulsory powers over land merit a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Secondly, any consequential amendments that amend primary legislation under clause 32(1), which I was just talking about, will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is to ensure that any further changes that might be necessary to Acts of Parliament that have previously been subject to the full parliamentary process are appropriately scrutinised. In plain English, if we have missed anything and we need to use clause 32 to deal with that, it would be inappropriate to do that through the negative procedure. Parliament should have the opportunity to properly debate any changes that have been made.
In conclusion, the clauses make standard an essential provision that is necessary to ensure that the measures in the Bill can be commenced.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Extent
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 34, page 26, line 38, leave out “subsections (2) and” and insert “subsection”.
This amendment and amendment 25 provide for the repeal of section 141(5A) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 in clause 23(3) to extend to England and Wales only. Although section 141 generally extends to Scotland, subsection (5A) only extends to England and Wales, so its repeal should only extend there.
Gavin Barwell
As a demonstration that perfection is not always possible, amendments 24 and 25 are technical amendments to clause 34, which is the standard extent clause of the Bill. In other words, it is the clause that says which parts of the United Kingdom the legislation applies to. They are necessary to correct a drafting error.
As currently drafted, clause 34 provides that clause 23(3), which makes a consequential amendment as part of the repeal of part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, extends to England, Wales and Scotland. That is incorrect, as the measures in the Bill, with the exception of the final provisions, should extend to England and Wales only.
Clause 23(3) is a consequential provision that repeals subsection (5A) of section 141 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. That provides that part 4 of the 1961 Act does not apply to urban development corporations. Although the 1980 Act extends to Scotland, section 141(5A) extends only to England and Wales. That is how the mistake was made.
Although leaving clause 34 without amendment would have no practical effect, it would be beneficial to correct it to avoid any potential confusion about the territorial extent of the Bill as it proceeds through Parliament. Making the correction will mean that the extent clause of the Bill will correctly reflect that the substantive measures in the Bill extend only to England and Wales. I hope that is clear; I have done my best to make it so.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment made: 25, in clause 34, page 26, line 39, leave out subsection (2).—(Gavin Barwell.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 24.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Commencement
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 35, page 27, line 8, after “3”, insert
“, (Power to direct preparation of joint local development documents)”
The amendment provides for the regulation-making powers conferred by NC4 to come into force on the passing of the Act resulting from the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 4—Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents—
(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28 insert—
“28A Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in relation to a document whether or not it is specified in the local development schemes of the local planning authorities in question as a document which is to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.
(4) A direction under this section may specify—
(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.
(5) The Secretary of State must, when giving a direction under this section, notify the local planning authorities to which it applies of the reasons for giving it.
(6) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may direct the local planning authorities to which it is given to amend their local development schemes so that they cover the joint development plan document to which it relates.
(7) A joint development plan document is a development plan document which is, or is required to be, prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities pursuant to a direction under this section.
28B Application of Part to joint development plan documents
(1) This Part applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a joint development plan document as it applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a development plan document.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a development plan document must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) in connection with a joint development plan document .
(3) If the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation, the requirements of this Part in relation to the spatial development strategy also apply.
(4) Those requirements also apply if—
(a) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the combined authority’s area, and
(b) the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a local planningauthority whose area is within, or is the same as, the area of the combined authority.
28C Modification or withdrawal of direction under section 28A
(1) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under section 28A by notice in writing to the authorities to which it was given.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when modifying or withdrawing a direction under section 28A, notify the local planning authorities to which it was given of the reasons for the modification or withdrawal.
(3) The following provisions of this section apply if—
(a) the Secretary of State withdraws a direction under section 28A, or
(b) the Secretary of State modifies a direction under that section so that it ceases to apply to one or more of the local planning authorities to which it was given.
(4) Any step taken in relation to the joint development plan document to which the direction related is to be treated as a step taken by—
(a) a local planning authority to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding document prepared by them, or
(b) two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by them.
(5) Any independent examination of a joint development plan document to which the direction related must be suspended.
(6) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection a local planning authority to which the direction applied request the Secretary of State to do so, the Secretary of State may direct that—
(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by a local planning authority to which the direction applied, or
(ii) any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied, and
(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to what is a corresponding document or a corresponding joint development plan document for the purposes of this section.”
(3) In section 21 (intervention by Secretary of State) after subsection (11) insert—
“(12) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities who have prepared the document.”
(4) In section 27 (Secretary of State’s default powers) after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
(5) Section 28 (joint local development documents) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).
(6) In subsection (9) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by an authority which were a party to the agreement, or
(ii) any corresponding joint local development document prepared by two or more other authorities which were parties to the agreement;”.
(7) In subsection (11) (meaning of “corresponding document”) at the end insert “or a corresponding joint local development document for the purposes of this section.”
(8) In section 37 (interpretation) after subsection (5B) insert—
“(5C) Joint local development document must be construed in accordance with section 28(10).
(5D) Joint development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 28A(7). ”
(9) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority and county council) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).
(10) In paragraph 3 (powers exercised by the Mayor of London) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Mayor may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Mayor thinks just between the councils for whom the document has been prepared.”
(11) In paragraph 7 (powers exercised by combined authority) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction requiring two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document. It also makes provision about the consequences of withdrawal or modification of such a direction.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 4, in proposed new subsection (12) of section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, at end insert
“after consulting with the local authorities concerned.”
Gavin Barwell
If I may, before I turn to the specific amendment, I would like to make introductory remarks about the amendments that we are debating here, and the next couple, which sit together, to a degree, in policy terms, although we shall debate them separately. This is really about our proposed approach to ensuring that all communities benefit from the certainty and clarity that a local plan can provide. I hope that what I say will provide helpful context.
The planning system is at the heart of the Government’s plans to boost housing supply. It is not the only thing that we need to do to build more homes; but certainly, one of the crucial ingredients of the strategy that we shall set out in the White Paper will be to release enough land in the right parts of the country to meet housing need. However, rather than having a top-down system in which central Government decide where the housing goes, the Government passionately believe in a bottom-up system where communities take the decisions. There is one caveat: that councillors should not be able to duck taking the tough decisions. In my view, my role in the system is to ensure that each community in the country takes the necessary decisions to meet housing need. How they do it should be a matter for them.
A second objective, looking at the matter from the viewpoint of those who want to build homes, is that the planning system should give them certainty about where the homes can be built, and where they should not try to build homes. That is why we have a longstanding commitment to a local plan-led system, which identifies what development is needed in an area, and sets out where it should and should not go, and so provides certainty for those who want to invest.
Local planning authorities have had more than a decade to produce a local plan. The majority—more than 70%—have done so. However, not every local authority has made the same progress towards getting a plan in place, and there are some gaps in parts of the country where plans are needed most. We have made clear our expectation that all local planning authorities should have a local plan. We have provided targeted support through the LGA’s planning advisory service and the Planning Inspectorate, to assist them in doing so. We have also been clear about the fact that local plans should be kept up to date, to ensure that the policies in them remain relevant. If that is not happening it is right for the Government to take action.
We invited a panel of experts to consider how local plan-making could be made more efficient and effective. The local plans expert group recommended a clear statutory requirement for all authorities to produce a plan. We agree that the requirement to have a local plan should not be in doubt. However, as long as authorities have policies to address their strategic housing and other priorities, they should have freedom about the type of plan most appropriate to their area. In fact, the constituency of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is an example of a part of the country where a decision has been taken to work with a strategic plan over a wider area, rather than 10 individual local plans.
Effective planning, which meets the housing, economic and infrastructure needs of the people who live in an area, does not need to be constrained by planning authority boundaries. We want more co-operation and joint planning for authorities to plan strategically with their neighbours, ensuring, together, that they can meet the housing and other needs of their areas. There are opportunities to improve the accessibility of plans to local people. The amendments that we propose will strengthen planning in those areas.
New clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document—the documents that comprise an authority’s local plan—if he considers that that will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in one or more of those authorities. Where we direct authorities to prepare a joint plan, the local planning authorities will work together to prepare it. They will then each decide whether to adopt the joint plan.
The country’s need for housing is not constrained by neighbourhood, district or county boundaries. The system needs to support planning and decision making at the right functional level of geography.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I wholeheartedly subscribe to the sentiments that my hon. Friend the Minister expressed at the start of his remarks about local councils and communities making decisions. How is that reconcilable with the position in London, where, although borough councils have important powers in this policy area, they can effectively be overridden by the Greater London Authority? If we were really localist, would we not be pushing decisions on housing down to our borough councils?
Gavin Barwell
Actually, most of the statutory responsibilities in London still sit with the London boroughs, but their plans do have to conform to the strategic policies of the London plan, as my right hon. Friend knows. There is a debate about such matters. An interesting distinction is that the London plan cannot allocate specific sites, in either my right hon. Friend’s constituency or any other part of the capital. It can set out some overall strategic policies, but it is then essentially for the borough plan in Barnet, Croydon or wherever else to decide where the development in their area goes, subject to the overall strategic policies.
The Government’s view is that the balance is right, and that there is a case for strategic planning across London, but clearly it would be possible to argue otherwise. Indeed, there was a period during which the capital did not have a body to provide strategic planning. There is absolutely a legitimate debate to be had. It might reassure my right hon. Friend to hear that I would be opposed to a situation in which the London plan could allocate particular sites contrary to the wishes of Barnet Council, because that would undermine the kind of localism that she refers to.
We have been clear that local planning authorities should work collaboratively so that strategic priorities, particularly for housing, are properly co-ordinated across local boundaries and clearly reflected in individual local plans. We have already discussed the duty to co-operate, and separately we have set out our commitment to strengthen planning guidance to improve the functioning of that duty. The Government recognise that it is not currently functioning in an ideal way.
Following a call for evidence and discussions with a range of bodies, including planning authorities, the development industry and the community groups, the local plans expert group drew attention to the difficulty that some areas are having with providing for the housing that they require, particularly where housing need is high and land is heavily constrained. Such challenges can be compounded when the timetables for local plans coming forward in neighbouring areas do not align, and the plans are therefore not informed by a common evidence base. We need to ensure that such challenges—they are real challenges—do not become reasons for ducking the tough decisions that need to be made to ensure that we build the housing we need.
A joined-up plan-making process, in which key decisions are taken together, will help local planning authorities to provide their communities with a plan for delivering the housing they need. The idea of joint planning and working collaboratively with neighbours is not new. Local planning authorities can already choose to work together on a joint plan and as part of a joint planning committee. There are many examples of their doing so. Indeed, I recently met representatives of Norwich City Council at the MIPIM exhibition. They told me about the way in which they are working with South Norfolk and Broadland districts to produce a combined plan across the three districts. I have already referred to the example in Greater Manchester, with which the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton will be familiar.
We will continue to support and encourage local planning authorities to choose the most appropriate approach to plan-making in their area, whether they are working on their own or with others to prepare a joint plan. My first bit of reassurance to the Committee is that I envisage the power we are taking being used sparingly. Where effective planning across boundaries is not happening, we must take action to help local planning authorities to make progress, to provide certainty for communities; otherwise, we risk delaying or even preventing the delivery of housing that is urgently needed.
New clause 4 will enable us to do what I have just described. It amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to enable the Secretary of State to direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint plan. The power can be exercised only in situations in which the Secretary of State considers that it will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in one or more of the authorities. The change will apply existing provisions for the preparation and examination of development plan documents. It also provides for the consequences of the withdrawal or modification of a direction.
New clause 4 will also amend some existing provisions—sections 21 and 27 of the 2004 Act—to ensure that, should the Secretary of State need to intervene more directly in the preparation of a joint plan, there is a mechanism for recovering any costs incurred from each of the relevant local planning authorities. Costs will be apportioned in such a way as the Secretary of State considers just. If the Mayor of London, a combined authority or a county council prepares a joint plan at the invitation of the Secretary of State, they will be responsible for apportioning liability fairly for any expenditure that they incur. Government amendment 26 will provide for the regulation-making power conferred by new clause 4 to come into force on the passing of the Act.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I shall address my introductory remarks to the Minister’s general points about the importance of local plan-making. I say at the outset that Opposition members of the Committee have noticed and welcomed the difference in tone and the slight change in policy direction that have come with the new Minister. I agree about the importance of having communities at the heart of local plan-making. When planning is done really well and people are involved in planning their neighbourhoods, we are much more likely to get the sort of development that supports our placemaking objectives, and that is supported by local people. Critically, in my experience, the involvement of local communities drives up the quality of what is delivered locally. We totally agree with the Minister that, where possible, local communities should be at the heart of planning and local authorities should work with their neighbourhoods to draw up a local plan.
Nevertheless, like the Minister, we recognise that if a local plan is not in place, local communities and neighbourhoods are at risk of receiving really inappropriate development. To determine applications, a council is likely to rely on saved local policies, if it has them, from a previous plan which might be out of date. What often happens in my experience—this is particularly true recently, with local authorities concerned about the number of applications they reject in case they subsequently get overturned on appeal—is that decisions go through that might not be in the best interests of the local authority or the local community, simply because a local plan is not in place.
I am pleased that the Minister consulted the local plan expert group in thinking about how to bring forward the provisions in new clause 4. The people on that group are very knowledgeable about the planning system. Nevertheless, he did not need to do that. He just needed to pick up his copy of the Lyons report—I know he has one—and turn to page 62. On that page he will find our arguments as to why in certain circumstances it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene in local plan-making when, for whatever reason, local plans are not coming forward from the local authority.
The Minister knows that one of the major reasons for plans’ not coming forward or being thrown out by the inspector is that councils are not suitably addressing the duty to co-operate. When we were taking evidence for the Lyons review, a number of councillors said, “The real problem is that we cannot meet housing need in our area because we do not have enough land available. We cannot put a proper five-year land supply in place because we simply do not have the land available.”
From memory, two examples that stood out were Stevenage and the city of Oxford. They have substantial housing need and a strong demand for housing, but they do not have enough land within their specific local authority boundary to meet that need. Under the Government’s legislation, the duty to co-operate would come into play. Those authorities would sit down and make a decision.
The city of Oxford needed South Oxfordshire to bring forward some land, and Stevenage required its neighbouring authorities to bring forward some land. Alas, the duty to co-operate did not work as the Government had envisaged. The land did not come forward in those neighbouring authorities’ plans, and that placed both the city of Oxford and Stevenage in the rather difficult situation of having acute housing need but no means by which to meet that need. There are many other such examples around the country.
We listened to a lot of evidence in the Lyons review. In an ideal world, one would not want to give powers to the Secretary of State to direct authorities to come together and produce a plan, but if they are not doing so, they are putting their communities at risk of not meeting housing need, which is acute in some areas. We therefore decided reluctantly—very much like the Minister—that powers should be given to the Secretary of State in limited circumstances to direct local authorities.
The new clause refers to,
“two or more local planning authorities”.
That is one way forward. Another that we thought of would be to look at the area covered by strategic housing market assessments and perhaps make that subject to direction by the Secretary of State, but a few local authorities coming together in the appropriate area is just as good a way forward.
As the Committee will have gathered from what I am saying, the Opposition do not have any particular problems with new clause 4, but I have some specific questions. First, will the Minister clarify who decides exactly what is in the document? Perhaps I misheard him, but I think he said it would be up to local authorities themselves, under the provisions in proposed new section 28A, to decide exactly how they would put the plan together. My reading, though, is that that proposed new section gives powers to the Secretary of State to determine exactly what is in the documents and what they might look like.
Proposed new section 28A(4) says that the Secretary of State can give a direction about:
“(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.”
I have absolutely no problem with that—it seems to us to be an entirely sensible way forward when local plan-making arrangements have broken down for whatever reason—but it does seem to suggest that it will not be the local councils that will be deciding what the documents cover. In those circumstances, it will be the Secretary of State.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady has read the provisions entirely correctly. We want to make sure that, for example, everywhere in the country there is clarity about site allocations and where people can build. That is why we need that power. The point I was making in my speech was that authorities can choose whether they wish to do their own local plan or to work together, as those in Greater Manchester have done, to produce a spatial development strategy. We shall not specify all the detail, but there are some core things that need to be covered throughout the country.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification.
My second point is about proposed new section 28C. Will the Minister direct us to where we can find the set of circumstances that will trigger the Secretary of State’s asking local authorities to come together to produce a joint plan? I have given him the example of when the duty to co-operate is not working. I would have thought that should be pretty apparent, because the likelihood would be that a local plan would be thrown out by the planning inspector. I am not sure whether there are other circumstances that the Minister can tell us about. It could be that things are just taking too long, or that something is not being done properly.
I suspect that we will have regulations to support the legislation, which will make it all clear to us at some future date. They will have the specificity on the action or non-action that the Minister has in mind that would trigger the Secretary of State’s involvement and such a direction being given to local authorities. It would help our deliberations if the Minister could be a bit clearer about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State will make this direction.
Finally—we will get on to this later, I hope—the Planning Officers Society has helpfully put into the public domain some detail on how the duty to co-operate is failing to meet housing need in this country. The association has very helpfully proposed policies to ensure that everywhere has a local plan in place that are pretty similar to what the Minister has suggested this morning. I did not want to finish my remarks on new clause 4 without acknowledging the work done by the society over several years to highlight, to the Minister and others, the fact that the current system is just not working for everyone, and the fact that something must be done to ensure that each area can have a local plan in place.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 27th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2016 - (27 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government new clause 4—Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents—
(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28 insert—
“28A Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in relation to a document whether or not it is specified in the local development schemes of the local planning authorities in question as a document which is to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.
(4) A direction under this section may specify—
(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.
(5) The Secretary of State must, when giving a direction under this section, notify the local planning authorities to which it applies of the reasons for giving it.
(6) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may direct the local planning authorities to which it is given to amend their local development schemes so that they cover the joint development plan document to which it relates.
(7) A joint development plan document is a development plan document which is, or is required to be, prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities pursuant to a direction under this section.
28B Application of Part to joint development plan documents
(1) This Part applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a joint development plan document as it applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a development plan document.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a development plan document must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) in connection with a joint development plan document.
(3) If the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation, the requirements of this Part in relation to the spatial development strategy also apply.
(4) Those requirements also apply if—
(a) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the combined authority’s area, and
(b) the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a local planning authority whose area is within, or is the same as, the area of the combined authority.
28C Modification or withdrawal of direction under section 28A
(1) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under section 28A by notice in writing to the authorities to which it was given.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when modifying or withdrawing a direction under section 28A, notify the local planning authorities to which it was given of the reasons for the modification or withdrawal.
(3) The following provisions of this section apply if—
(a) the Secretary of State withdraws a direction under section 28A, or
(b) the Secretary of State modifies a direction under that section so that it ceases to apply to one or more of the local planning authorities to which it was given.
(4) Any step taken in relation to the joint development plan document to which the direction related is to be treated as a step taken by—
(a) a local planning authority to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding document prepared by them, or
(b) two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by them.
(5) Any independent examination of a joint development plan document to which the direction related must be suspended.
(6) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection a local planning authority to which the direction applied request the Secretary of State to do so, the Secretary of State may direct that—
(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by a local planning authority to which the direction applied, or
(ii) any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied, and
(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to what is a corresponding document or a corresponding joint development plan document for the purposes of this section.”
(3) In section 21 (intervention by Secretary of State) after subsection (11) insert—
“(12) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities who have prepared the document.”
(4) In section 27 (Secretary of State’s default powers) after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
(5) Section 28 (joint local development documents) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).
(6) In subsection (9) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by an authority which were a party to the agreement, or
(ii) any corresponding joint local development document prepared by two or more other authorities which were parties to the agreement;”.
(7) In subsection (11) (meaning of “corresponding document”) at the end insert “or a corresponding joint local development document for the purposes of this section.”
(8) In section 37 (interpretation) after subsection (5B) insert—
“(5C) Joint local development document must be construed in accordance with section 28(10).
(5D) Joint development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 28A(7).”
(9) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority and county council) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).
(10) In paragraph 3 (powers exercised by the Mayor of London) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Mayor may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Mayor thinks just between the councils for whom the document has been prepared.”
(11) In paragraph 7 (powers exercised by combined authority) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction requiring two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document. It also makes provision about the consequences of withdrawal or modification of such a direction.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 4, in proposed new subsection (12) of section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, at end insert—
“after consulting with the local authorities concerned.”
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a member of Oldham Council. I am speaking to amendment (a) to new clause 4.
Throughout the debate, what has stood out is a sense that although we are creating a framework to be understood clearly and to set expectations, that is in the spirit of communities themselves determining what is right—a genuinely partnership approach. The amendment to Government new clause 4 seeks to ensure that there is discussion with local authorities before the apportioning of costs between local authorities for joint development plans.
At the moment, new clause 4 will allow the Secretary of State to apportion liability for expenditure, on the basis of what the Secretary of State thinks is just, between the local planning authorities that have prepared the document. The amendment would ensure consultation with the relevant local authorities before the Secretary of State determines what proportion of costs each must pay. The Secretary of State might already intend to consult with local authorities, so reassurance would be what is required. Given that the tone of the debate so far has been one of working with local communities, it would be helpful not to go against that and impose costs without any kind of consultation or discussion.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr McCabe.
The hon. Member for City of Durham asked a couple of questions about new clause 4, which I will endeavour to answer before I come to the amendment to the new clause. In essence, the main issue that the hon. Lady wished to explore was the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might wish to pursue the power to intervene. The wording of the new clause is relatively broad—I tried to touch on this wording in my speech this morning—under proposed section 28A(3):
“The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.”
It might help the hon. Lady if I expand on that and give an idea of the types of situation we have in mind. I will make two points. First, in relation to “one or more”, there might be a situation in which a particular local planning authority is struggling to produce its own local plan—perhaps, as I indicated in my speech, because there is not only a high level of housing need in the area concerned, but also heavy constraints on land. Given the cases I have already dealt with over the past three months, I am thinking of districts where a significant proportion of the land area is green belt and therefore has heavy constraints on development potential.
In such circumstances, the Secretary of State might want to direct that authority and two or three others where land is much less constrained to produce a joint plan, in order to provide an opportunity to consider whether some of the housing need in district A might be met in some of the adjoining districts. It is possible that authorities covered by such a direction might have produced a perfectly viable plan for their area, but we would be looking to work across a group of authorities to meet housing need over a wider area.
Secondly, there are probably two types of situation in which that might arise. I have alluded to one already—where an authority has simply failed to produce a plan. As the Committee knows, several authorities are in that position at the moment. The second is where an authority might have tried to produce a plan, but is failing to meet the housing need in its area. Either it has fallen short of the assessed need or the plan was accepted by an inspector but the authority subsequently found itself unable to deliver the housing it had planned for various reasons. Essentially, the two things that I think the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in are, first, authorities that are simply not doing the job of producing a plan; and secondly, plans that are wholly inadequate in terms of meeting the required level of housing need.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Will regulations set out the circumstances that are likely to lead to a Secretary of State’s direction, or the process that will be followed in order to involve the Secretary of State? We are struggling with what will trigger the Secretary of State’s involvement. Will it be a complaint from a member of the public or one of the local authorities, or something else?
Gavin Barwell
I will do my best to answer that question. I am in a slightly difficult position. I might as well be open about the difficulty that I face. I have referred several times to the fact that there will be a White Paper that will set out clearly how we intend to use the powers. Given that I do not yet have collective agreement to the White Paper, it is difficult for me to say too much. However, the powers will not be used if it is a simple matter of complaints from individual members of the public in an area or from developers.
The Department is likely to proactively monitor the progress that local planning authorities make. I made it fairly clear in my opening remarks that I attach great importance to getting full coverage of the country, not necessarily in terms of every single planning authority having its own plan, but in terms of making sure that all parts of the country are covered by a plan, whether it is a strategic plan covering a wider area or individual authorities having their own plan. I will ask my officials to give me regular updates on progress and I will proactively look to intervene if I believe that is the only remaining lever to get to where I think we all agree we want to get to in planning. Does that go far enough to help the hon. Lady?
Gavin Barwell
It does. That is good to hear.
I hope I can provide some reassurance on the amendment. As the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton said, in the case of a joint local development document or a joint plan, where the Secretary of State is apportioning liability for the expenditure between the relevant authorities, the amendment basically says that the relevant authorities have to be consulted. As I have argued before, I do not think it is necessary to write that into statute, but it is clearly something that we would want to have a discussion with the relevant authorities about. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the key language in the clause is about justness. There is a test of reasonableness in terms of the way the Secretary of State will be doing it in legislation.
Jim McMahon
Clearly, we have absolute confidence in the Minister. We know he is a localist and values relationships with our local authorities, but—heaven forbid—if another Minister in that position with such powers has a different approach, we would want to make sure that safeguards are in place.
Gavin Barwell
Let me make a couple of further remarks and then I will be happy to go away and reflect on that point. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
Should the Secretary of State intervene under section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, statutorily he can only require reimbursement of any costs he has incurred if the costs are specified in a notice to the authority or authorities concerned. I will read this into the record because it will allow the hon. Gentleman to go away and look at this and check that he is satisfied with it. This is set out in subsection (11) of section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is inserted by section 145(4) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
Should it be necessary for the Secretary of State to prepare a plan because the relevant authorities have failed to do so, despite being given every opportunity, again it is right that he can recover his costs, but in doing so he would need to demonstrate that he has been just and has acted reasonably. The former—the justness point—may require a consultation with the authorities concerned. I have given an assurance that that would happen. The latter is a concept that is well understood in legal terms. I do not believe it is necessary to write this into law, but if the hon. Gentleman is happy he can go away and look at what I have just referred to in statute. If he is still not satisfied, there is the option for him to press the matter a bit further on Report. I am happy to talk to him outside the Committee if he is still not satisfied.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Gavin Barwell
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 35, page 27, line 8, after “3”, insert
“, (Review of local development documents)”.
The amendment provides for the regulation-making powers conferred by NC7 to come into force on the passing of the Act resulting from the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 3—Content of development plan documents—
(1) In section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Each local planning authority must identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area.
(1C) Policies to address those priorities must be set out in the local planning authority’s development plan documents (taken as a whole).
(1D) Subsection (1C) does not apply in the case of a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation if and to the extent that the council or corporation are satisfied that policies to address those priorities are set out in the spatial development strategy.
(1E) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsection (1D) also applies in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”
(2) In section 35 of that Act (local planning authorities’ monitoring reports) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation have determined in accordance with section 19(1D) that—
(a) policies to address the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in their area are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) accordingly, such policies will not to that extent be set out in their development plan documents.
(3B) Each report by the council or corporation under subsection (2) must—
(a) indicate that such policies are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) specify where in the strategy those policies are set out.
(3C) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsections (3A) and (3B) also apply in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”
This new clause requires a local planning authority to identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area and to set out policies to address these in their development plan documents. The latter duty does not apply in the case of certain authorities to the extent that other documents set out the policies, but in that case the authority’s monitoring reports must make that clear.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 3, after proposed new subsection (1E) to section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, insert
“(1F) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a particular timescale to be set for the production of plan documents.”
Government new clause 7—Review of local development documents.
Gavin Barwell
This morning, when Mr Bone was in the Chair, he kindly allowed me to make some introductory remarks about the whole package of amendments in relation to local plans, so I hope I can be a little more brief as I tackle each one.
We have previously made clear our expectation that all local planning authorities should have a plan in place. That is in paragraph 153 of the national planning policy framework, for example. As I said earlier, the local plans expert group recommended introducing a statutory duty on local planning authorities to produce and maintain an up-to-date plan. The group saw that as a means of underlining the importance of local plans and ensuring that their production is given the necessary priority. We have carefully considered those recommendations and the representations we received on them, and we agree.
New clause 3 amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and introduces a requirement for each local planning authority to identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in their area. It also places a requirement on the local planning authority to set out policies that address those strategic priorities in the authority’s development plan documents, which collectively make up the local plan. That requirement does not apply if a local planning authority in London considers that its strategic priorities are addressed in the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy, the London plan. The same opportunity will be given to local planning authorities in the area of a combined authority where the combined authority has the function of preparing a spatial development strategy for its area as, for example, Greater Manchester will.
Where a local authority is relying on policies in a spatial development strategy to deliver its strategic priorities, it has to make that clear in the authority monitoring report that it is required to publish annually. For local plans to be effective, they need to be kept up to date, which brings me to new clause 7.
Paragraph 153 of the NPPF makes it clear that a local plan should be reviewed
“in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances.”
We want to put beyond doubt our expectation that plans are reviewed regularly, so new clause 7 amends the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, introducing a requirement for a local planning authority to review its documents at intervals prescribed by the Secretary of State. When reviewing its documents, it should consider whether they should be revised, a little bit like the statements of community involvement that we covered earlier in relation to the neighbourhood planning provisions. If the authority is content that a document does not need to change, that is fine, but it needs to publish its reasons for coming to that decision. The new requirement does not affect the existing duty to keep documents under review.
Finally, amendment 27 simply provides for the regulation-making powers conferred by new clause 7 to come into force on the passing of the Act resulting from the Bill.
Taken together, the two new clauses and amendment 27 put beyond doubt the Government’s commitment to a plan-led system in which all local planning authorities have an up-to-date local plan that ensures that sufficient land is allocated for housing in the right places to meet needs, with roads and other vital amenities required to support that housing—a local plan that crucially provides an opportunity for local communities to shape the development of their city, town or village. I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said earlier, and I hope that the amendment is accepted.
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I will speak about Government new clause 3 and amendment (a) together. I tabled amendment (a) hoping to elicit more information from the Minister about what the Government are trying to do with new clause 3. On the face of it, that new clause seems very sensible in asking that development plan documents set out strategic priorities. That is quite hard to disagree with. What I am not clear about is whether an additional tier of work will be required of local authorities in putting their plan together.
I tabled amendment (a) simply so that I could ask the Minister to focus on the speedy production of local plans. He will know that this has been an ongoing issue for some time. It is undoubtedly the case that the local plan-making process put in place in 2004 ended up being rather more lengthy than those who put the legislation together—I hasten to add that it was not me—thought it would be. It is a very cumbersome process for local authorities. It is not that all the documents are not needed. I will say something about that in a moment.
The issue—I think it is one that the Minister recognises, particularly in terms of the content of new clause 4—is that we need to get local authorities to a position where it is a more straightforward process for them to put a local development plan document together. We know that under the 2004 process, even where there were not really any local difficulties or much complexity, it was taking on average three years to produce the plan to make it ready for inspection. That was not getting it right through the process; that was just getting it ready and going through the various rounds of consultation.
The average cost of the process, from beginning to end, was a staggering £500,000. When I argued earlier in the Committee’s deliberations for putting more money into neighbourhood plans as the building block for local plan-making, that was the figure I had in mind. Lots of money is being set aside for consultation, but it has not always produced results that have altered the local plan-making process in any way. As I said earlier to the Minister, I think that money could be better spent.
I think it is fair to say that there has been a difference of opinion among some inspectors as to the weight that should be given to the plan, and various bits of the plan, during the whole process, particularly if the plan was referred back for a part of it to be rewritten. All in all, we have ended up in a situation where local plan-making has been very complex, lengthy and costly. I pay tribute to the Minister and others who are looking at streamlining this process, but I want to suggest a way of doing it that would help not only local authorities but local communities and all those who are subsequently involved in implementing the plan.
This is not actually my idea; it was put in evidence, before the last election, by the Planning Officers Society, the organisation that represents planners. They are the people who draw up the plans and then have to try and implement them. It is important that any Government listens to what they have to say about the planning system because they know better than anyone the difficulties and what would work in practice.
The planners, interestingly, have put together a two-stage process that relates directly to the content of new clause 3, which is why I made the suggestion here. They are suggesting a first stage, which could be the outcome of a lot of work with the local community to set strategic priorities for that specific local authority, or a group of local authorities if that is deemed to be more important. The critical point is that it would not require the long technical documents that currently go with local plans—such as a detailed minerals assessment or watercourse assessment—to be drawn up at that early stage.
I do not know whether the Minister has worked with local communities, particularly on the examination of a local plan, as I have in my local area on our local plan, but everyone came to the committee with documents at least 12 inches thick. They were incredibly complicated and technical, and unless someone is an expert they simply would not understand or have time to go through them. I am sure almost everyone could get to grips with such documents if they had all the time in the world, but to expect a local community to go through such highly technical and detailed documents at the stage of a public inquiry does not seem sensible. Nothing will be agreed until the public examination takes place.
It would be really helpful to consider what planning officers are saying. They are suggesting getting the community on board for what is important to them, such as the strategic direction forward plan and what, broadly in terms of land use, the local authority will set out—what types of housing and other developments in what timeframe. If it is possible to get broad agreement on that general way forward, there could be a second stage when the first one has been agreed and has been through a lighter-touch inspection. In the second stage, the more technical documents could be brought into the frame and all the professionals who will have to put the document into operation will be able to assess whether the technical support and evidence is there for the exact developments to take place.
I know the Minister is open to speeding up the process and introducing an easier one. I want to use the opportunity of amendment (a) to new clause 3 to suggest this as a possible way forward that could greatly speed up the whole process, not only for local authorities, but for the local community. That is the purpose of amendment (a).
There are two issues. It is really important to have a final date by which local authorities must produce their plan. I hope that we will not be sitting in another housing and planning Bill Committee, but I fear there may be one coming down the line. I certainly hope that in a year or 18 months, 30% of local authorities will not be without a plan in place. We certainly do not want to be here in 2020 with a set of local authorities not having a plan in place, 16 years after a Bill was enacted requiring a local plan.
As well as testing the Minister on whether he has given any consideration to how to speed up the overall planning process, I want to know whether he thinks it would be appropriate to set a final cut-off point for local plans to be made.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady has just made a very interesting speech. I do not particularly like her amendment, for reasons I will explain, but I have a lot of sympathy with the ideas behind it and will try to reassure her on that front. She quoted the Planning Officers Society, a fine organisation that is chaired by Mike Kiely, who was chief planning officer at Croydon Council and whom I know very well—he is an excellent planning officer. She is quoting from a very reputable organisation.
The hon. Lady made some sage points about the time and cost involved in producing a local plan, which we will address in the White Paper; I hope that reassures her. We are particularly keen to remove a lot of the confrontation involved in the local plan process, such as the huge arguments about whether councils have calculated objectively assessed need correctly, and everything that follows. Councils face the very high test of whether the plan is the most appropriate one, which allows the developer to say, “Well, you’ve got everything right, except that this site is better than that site.” A huge amount of wrangling goes on, and I am not sure whether that is in the public interest. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments underlying the amendment, which the hon. Lady outlined. If she bears with us for a few weeks, she should see our proposals to address those issues.
Let me say a few words, first about the indication of a final date, which the hon. Lady asked for, and secondly about my concern with the specific wording of the amendment—I think it is a probing amendment, so she is probably more interested in the principle than in the detail. The Government have said that we expect authorities to have plans in place by early next year. Anyone who is listening to this debate can be clear that there is a clear deadline to get this work done. That does not mean that we will want to intervene on every single council that has not achieved that by then, because some councils may be working flat out and are very close, so intervening would do nothing to speed the process up. However, councils that are not making satisfactory progress towards that target should be warned that intervention will follow, because we are determined to ensure that we get plan coverage in place.
The key issue with the wording of the hon. Lady’s amendment is that the gun did not start at the same moment; councils are at very different stages of the process. Rather than just saying, “Everybody needs to get to these points by these dates”, we need to reflect the fact that some councils have plans that are no longer up to date, so they need to do a review. Others have never produced one and are at a different stage along the road. If the hon. Lady was in my shoes, she would want a little more flexibility than her amendment would allow to decide on the right triggers for intervention.
What we hold councils to at the moment is whether they are achieving the timescales they set out in their own documents. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady on the issues of principle about trying to reduce the cost and the time taken to produce plans, which is very important, but I would not necessarily want to set out in statute or in secondary legislation a set of timescales that every local council had to fit into.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister has said, particularly on the measures that the Government might consider to help speed up and simplify the plan-making process. I await the White Paper with even more fervent anticipation; it is going to be really interesting. I wanted to test the Minister on what was meant by the Government’s expectation that plans would be put in place by March next year. I heard his response, but I press him to ensure that local authorities complete the plan-making process as quickly as possible.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
Clause 35 makes standard provision in relation to the commencement of provisions in the Bill. Subsection (1) sets out the default position, which is that provisions are to come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State in commencement regulations. Where that default position applies, the Secretary of State may appoint different days for different purposes and may also make transitional provisions and savings. Subsection (3) sets out the exception to the default position, which is that the delegated powers within the neighbourhood planning provisions, the planning register provision and the final standard provisions of the Bill will come into force when the Bill obtains Royal Assent. The clause contains an essential and standard provision that is necessary to implement the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 3
Content of development plan documents
(1) In section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of local development documents) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Each local planning authority must identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area.
(1C) Policies to address those priorities must be set out in the local planning authority’s development plan documents (taken as a whole).
(1D) Subsection (1C) does not apply in the case of a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation if and to the extent that the council or corporation are satisfied that policies to address those priorities are set out in the spatial development strategy.
(1E) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsection (1D) also applies in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”
(2) In section 35 of that Act (local planning authorities’ monitoring reports) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation have determined in accordance with section 19(1D) that—
(a) policies to address the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in their area are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) accordingly, such policies will not to that extent be set out in their development plan documents.
(3B) Each report by the council or corporation under subsection (2) must—
(a) indicate that such policies are set out in the spatial development strategy, and
(b) specify where in the strategy those policies are set out.
(3C) If a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the authority’s area, subsections (3A) and (3B) also apply in relation to—
(a) a local planning authority whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority, and
(b) the spatial development strategy published by the combined authority.”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause requires a local planning authority to identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area and to set out policies to address these in their development plan documents. The latter duty does not apply in the case of certain authorities to the extent that other documents set out the policies, but in that case the authority’s monitoring reports must make that clear.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28 insert—
“28A Power to direct preparation of joint development plan documents
(1) The Secretary of State may direct two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section in relation to a document whether or not it is specified in the local development schemes of the local planning authorities in question as a document which is to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if the Secretary of State considers that to do so will facilitate the more effective planning of the development and use of land in the area of one or more of the local planning authorities in question.
(4) A direction under this section may specify—
(a) the area to be covered by the joint development plan document to which the direction relates;
(b) the matters to be covered by that document;
(c) the timetable for preparation of that document.
(5) The Secretary of State must, when giving a direction under this section, notify the local planning authorities to which it applies of the reasons for giving it.
(6) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under this section, the Secretary of State may direct the local planning authorities to which it is given to amend their local development schemes so that they cover the joint development plan document to which it relates.
(7) A joint development plan document is a development plan document which is, or is required to be, prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities pursuant to a direction under this section.
28B Application of Part to joint development plan documents
(1) This Part applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a joint development plan document as it applies for the purposes of any step which may be or is required to be taken in relation to a development plan document.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a development plan document must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) in connection with a joint development plan document .
(3) If the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a London borough council or a Mayoral development corporation, the requirements of this Part in relation to the spatial development strategy also apply.
(4) Those requirements also apply if—
(a) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 has the function of preparing the spatial development strategy for the combined authority’s area, and
(b) the authorities mentioned in section 28A(1) include a local planning authority whose area is within, or is the same as, the area of the combined authority.
28C Modification or withdrawal of direction under section 28A
(1) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under section 28A by notice in writing to the authorities to which it was given.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when modifying or withdrawing a direction under section 28A, notify the local planning authorities to which it was given of the reasons for the modification or withdrawal.
(3) The following provisions of this section apply if—
(a) the Secretary of State withdraws a direction under section 28A, or
(b) the Secretary of State modifies a direction under that section so that it ceases to apply to one or more of the local planning authorities to which it was given.
(4) Any step taken in relation to the joint development plan document to which the direction related is to be treated as a step taken by—
(a) a local planning authority to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding document prepared by them, or
(b) two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied for the purposes of any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by them.
(5) Any independent examination of a joint development plan document to which the direction related must be suspended.
(6) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection a local planning authority to which the direction applied request the Secretary of State to do so, the Secretary of State may direct that—
(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by a local planning authority to which the direction applied, or
(ii) any corresponding joint development plan document prepared by two or more local planning authorities to which the direction applied, and
(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to what is a corresponding document or a corresponding joint development plan document for the purposes of this section.”
(3) In section 21 (intervention by Secretary of State) after subsection (11) insert—
“(12) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities who have prepared the document.”
(4) In section 27 (Secretary of State’s default powers) after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Secretary of State may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Secretary of State thinks just between the local planning authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
(5) Section 28 (joint local development documents) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).
(6) In subsection (9) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the examination is resumed in relation to—
(i) any corresponding document prepared by an authority which were a party to the agreement, or
(ii) any corresponding joint local development document prepared by two or more other authorities which were parties to the agreement;”.
(7) In subsection (11) (meaning of “corresponding document”) at the end insert “or a corresponding joint local development document for the purposes of this section.”
(8) In section 37 (interpretation) after subsection (5B) insert—
“(5C) Joint local development document must be construed in accordance with section 28(10).
(5D) Joint development plan document must be construed in accordance with section 28A(7). ”
(9) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority and county council) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).
(10) In paragraph 3 (powers exercised by the Mayor of London) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the Mayor may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the Mayor thinks just between the councils for whom the document has been prepared.”
(11) In paragraph 7 (powers exercised by combined authority) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to give a direction requiring two or more local planning authorities to prepare a joint development plan document. It also makes provision about the consequences of withdrawal or modification of such a direction.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents
Schedule (County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents) makes provision for the exercise of default powers by county councils in relation to development plan documents.—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause and NS1 enable the Secretary of State to invite a county council to prepare or revise a development plan document in a case where the Secretary of State thinks that a district council in the county council’s area is failing to prepare, revise or adopt such a document.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 5, at end insert—
“with the agreement of district councils.”
Government new schedule 1—County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents.
Gavin Barwell
New clause 5 is the next part of the package of amendments that the Government have tabled in relation to local plans. It allows for the introduction of new schedule 1, which enables the Secretary of State to invite a county council in a two-tier area to prepare a local plan for a district local planning authority in the county in instances where, despite having every opportunity, the district has failed to do so.
The Government absolutely want to see local planning authorities producing their own local plans, but where that is not happening it is right that we take action to ensure that communities and business can benefit from the clarity and certainty that having a plan can provide. The Committee has already accepted the principle that the Secretary of State should have the power to direct a group of local planning authorities to work together on a joint plan. This would be an alternative way of addressing the same problem—namely, to direct a county council to produce a plan for a local planning authority area.
It may help the Committee to know that the Secretary of State can already invite the Mayor of London or a combined authority to prepare a plan for an authority in their respective areas under similar circumstances. New clause 5 would extend the same opportunity to county councils in two-tier areas so that, as far as possible, local plans are developed at the most appropriate local level.
I said in a previous debate that the powers for intervention will merely be for the Secretary of State to produce a plan. I think we would all agree that that should very much be a last resort, and that we should explore different options. It would be preferable to have other people in the local area being directed to get involved if a local planning authority is not doing its job. The new clause will work by amending schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Under our proposals, a county council will be invited to prepare, revise or approve a local plan only if the local planning authority has failed to progress its plan, and when the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate. County councils are directly accountable authorities, with the knowledge and understanding of the development needs of their areas, so in the Government’s opinion they are suitable bodies to prepare a plan for the areas they represent.
New schedule 1 will amend paragraphs 3 to 8 in schedule A1 to the 2004 Act to ensure that the existing powers available to the Mayor of London and combined authorities also apply to county councils. The county council would be responsible for preparing the plan and having it examined. It may then approve the document, or approve it subject to modifications recommended by the inspector, or it may direct the local planning authority to consider adopting it. The new schedule will also enable the Secretary of State to intervene in the preparation of a document by the county council.
Should the Secretary of State believe it is appropriate to step in to ensure that a plan is in place, new clause 5 and new schedule 1 will give him a further option, alongside existing powers, so that decisions are taken at the most local level possible. I commend the new clause and the new schedule to the Committee.
Dr Blackman-Woods
With your permission, Mr McCabe, I will speak to new clause 5 and amendment (a) at the same time.
The new clause is interesting. The Minister has given us some helpful clarification of the circumstances in which the measures it contains might be invoked, but I suspect that district councils might require a bit more information. I am sure the Minister does not need me to tell him that district councils are not terribly happy with the provisions in the new clause, which allow the Secretary of State to invite a county council to prepare a development plan document if he or she thinks that a district council in the county council’s area is failing to prepare, revise or adopt such a document.
In terms of sequencing, if a local authority has not prepared a local plan, when might the Government decide to invoke new clause 5 and when might they decide to invoke new clause 4? Presumably, both could be used to bring forward a plan that is not being developed. If the Minister could say something about that it would be extremely helpful.
Amendment (a) was tabled to put on the record the fact that the power in the new clause would allow quite a drastic thing to be done to district councils. I suppose some might be mightily relived, but others will not be. There is no evidence in the new clause or the attached new schedule that efforts will be made to involve district councils in the process, either in making the decision to move the responsibility for producing the plan to a county council or subsequently, once that decision has been taken.
Such involvement might be quite important, particularly because, aside from unitary counties, county councils might have limited planning expertise. They have planning departments that look after minerals and so on, but they may not have the planning expertise to deal with the whole range of housing and other issues that need to be in a local plan. It seems to me quite important for the district councils to be involved at some stage if those plans are to have local acceptance.
Hardly surprisingly, although district councils are not very happy, the County Councils Network has welcomed new clause 5 and new schedule 1. However, even the County Councils Network says in its briefing to the Committee that peer support may be appropriate to facilitate the signing off of the plans, and something may need to be done to work with district councils in addition to a direction from the Secretary of State. I thought it was quite interesting that it mentioned that, and it reinforces my point about amendment (a).
The Minister will know that the District Councils Network has expressed serious concerns about the new clause and the new schedule. It would much prefer a collaborative process. It feels that the new clause casts district councils aside and leaves county councils to get on with the job rather than district councils being expected to work with county councils to see plans through. The district councils have put a series of questions to the Committee. Given what the new clause will do to some district councils’ local plan-making functions, it is worth taking a few minutes to go through those questions.
The first question is:
“As County Councils are not local planning authorities, what estimate has the Minister made of the extra time it would take for the County Council to carry out the functions…and where would this expertise come from?”
Will that expertise be expected to come from the district council involved, other district councils or the county council’s neighbours? That is not clear. The Minister may intend to follow up on this point in regulations, but it is also not clear how district councils will be notified of the plan-making process, what rights they have to be consulted or what requirement there will be for county councils to continue to seek to work in partnership with district councils.
Given that the process of public involvement in local plans is clear, the District Councils Network also asked what the public’s involvement will be when county councils have plan-making powers. County councils typically deal with much bigger areas, so some clarity may need to be given about how exactly affected residents will be consulted by the local authority. That is a particularly important question. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us, but I sincerely hope that new clause 5 is not intended in any way to bypass the local community and its input into the local plan-making process. It would help us all in our deliberations on new clause 5 to have more information about that.
Not surprisingly, the district councils are concerned that the costs of producing local plans will fall on them. They have asked a whole set of questions about funding, but I will wrap them up and paraphrase them. What is there in the system to prevent county councils from spending money in an extravagant way, on things such as exhibitions about the plan, lots of public consultation and glossy documents? The district councils will have to pay for that, so what will be in place to ensure cost-effectiveness in the delivery of plans and efficient use of resources?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I want to say a few brief words on new clause 5 and to get a thorough understanding from the Minister about a particular situation that I, and I am sure others, might have in my constituency. This is about a local authority’s ability to use new clause 5 or possibly new clause 4 to avoid its responsibility in terms of required housing in its area, and how the Minister or Secretary of State will determine why one local authority is determined not to take its fair share of required housing.
I have a number of local authorities in my constituency, some of which are very keen to deliver houses and are doing so. One or two are not. How do we deal with a situation in which one errant local authority does not appear to want to produce a local plan that meets its objectively assessed housing need, and so uses new clause 4 or new clause 5 through the back door? I have not dreamed that situation. It is not that production of the local plan is being prevented, but there might simply be a political reluctance in the local authority to put housing in its area or there might be an ongoing battle to deliver a proper local plan.
That authority could argue, “We haven’t got the land in our local authority area, so we think all these houses should go in the adjoining local authority area”—which has a sound local plan and is delivering on its housing numbers. It might say, “Houses shouldn’t go in my local authority area. They should go in this adjoining one because they’ve got lots of space and lovely green fields to put the houses in.” The errant local authority might argue that houses should go into another local authority. We then come along and use new clause 4 or new clause 5 to say, “This has to be a joint plan, and these houses will have to go into the other local authority area that’s doing its job properly.” How will the Minister or the Secretary of State determine situations in which a local authority is not carrying out its duty to assess need and deliver those houses? Will the Minister look into that situation?
Gavin Barwell
It has been a useful debate, and I hope I can provide some clarification. Perhaps a mistress of understatement, the hon. Lady said that district councils were not terribly happy and county councils were reasonably happy. My message to district councils listening to this debate is that it is completely in their own power to ensure that this new clause is never used. All they need to do is produce local plans that address housing need in their area, and there will never be any reason at all for the Secretary of State to make use of this power. The only circumstances in which the power could ever be used would be if a district council somewhere in the country were failing to produce a local plan that met need in its area. To county councils, I would say, “Don’t get too excited,” because I do not think the intention is to make regular use of this power.
I will make one observation. When you become a Minister, you get given a mountain of brief to read into your subject. Something that stood out from one brief was the powers that the Government have taken to intervene on local planning authorities that are not deciding a high enough percentage of major applications within the specified timescale. That was quite contentious when the powers went through Parliament. What is interesting about it is that it has, I think, been used only three times. The existence of a power that says that the Planning Inspectorate is now going to determine planning applications rather than the relevant local authority determining them, has acted as a real spur to people to raise their game. It has not been necessary to use the power very often at all, and I suspect that this power might serve the same purpose. If it has provoked a strong reaction among district councils that do not ever want to see this happen, and that leads to more of them adopting their plans on a timely basis, I will be very happy never to have to use the power.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Does the Minister accept that one of the consequences—whether intended or unintended, I am not sure—of the possible designation of local planning departments as failing on the basis of the number of their determinations that are overturned by the inspector, is that, in practice, local authorities are very reluctant to turn any application down, lest it be overturned on appeal? That is most unfortunate, because we want local authorities to be able to determine an application on its merits, and not for it to be favoured because authorities are worried that they are going to lose their ability to determine all applications.
Gavin Barwell
That would be highly unfortunate and also unnecessary because the performance metric is purely about determining planning applications. It is just about ensuring that decisions are made within the statutory timescale.
Coming back to the issue the hon. Lady is probing with her amendment, what would be most useful—what she was really interested in—is some steer from me about when the powers under Government new clauses 4 and 5 might be used. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton was useful in providing a pointer about that. I will make two observations. One is generic: the hon. Lady was expressing nervousness that we might be back here in 12 months’ time debating another planning Bill. One of the things I wanted to do with this Bill was make sure that we took the necessary range of intervention powers in this area, so that we would not have to keep coming back and saying, “Actually, in this case we would like you to do this.” So I sat down with my officials and went through a variety of different situations and how Ministers might want to respond to them.
Taking my hon. Friend’s hypothetical example, if there is a local planning authority that is heavily constrained in terms of land—that is doing its best but is really struggling to meet housing needs in its area because of the make-up of that area—that would naturally lead to the use of new clause 4, because one might then look and say, “There are other authorities in the area that are not so constrained and if you worked together across that wider area, could you meet housing need across the area?”
My hon. Friend then mentioned a different kind of example: an authority that—an objective observer might suggest—had plenty of potential to meet housing need within its own area and was just ducking taking the necessary decisions. An intervention there, asking the authority to work with some neighbouring ones to produce a plan, would probably not work because they would continue to obstruct their neighbours and, as my hon. Friend said, potentially seek to pass the burden on to others. This might be a more suitable intervention power in those cases.
If the hon. Lady applies her mind to it, she can probably think of a couple of cases around the country in which a number of planning authorities within a county council area are struggling to meet their obligations. In that situation, looking at a county-wide solution to meeting housing need over a wider area might be an appropriate way forward. In some of those cases, county councils might choose to work with the relevant district councils, even if the Secretary of State gave them the formal responsibility.
Let me provide a little reassurance on a number of the detailed points that the hon. Lady made. She talked about three main things: skills and resources, and whether county councils had the skills and resources to do this work; the process in relation to the adoption of a plan—so if a county council produced a plan, how that plan got adopted; and also reassurance over residents’ involvement. I will deal with them in reverse order. I can provide her with complete reassurance on resident involvement. Local plans—whoever prepares or revises them—are subject to a legal requirement to consult the public and others, along with the right to make representations on the plan. From the point of view of residents living in a particular area, their ability to have their say and input on a plan will be completely unaffected. I hope that provides complete reassurance on that point.
Adoption is set out in the detail of new schedule 1, which goes with the new clause. I point members of the Committee to new paragraph 7C(4), which says:
“The upper-tier county council may…approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications”—
there it refers to modifications that the inspector recommends—
“as a local development document, or…direct the lower-tier planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority”.
The county council has a choice: it can take the legal decision and have the plan adopted, or—perhaps in circumstances in which it has worked with the district council to get to that point—it might be prefer to say, “Okay, there is the plan. It would be better for the district council to make that decision.” Either option is available.
On the resources front—financially, as it were—there are clear provisions in place. Let me deal with the skills front. County councils do have significant input and involvement in the local plan-making process. They often have a significant contribution to make in terms of infrastructure—highways infrastructure and some of those other issues—but clearly if the Secretary of State felt that a particular county council did not have the relevant skills to do the job, he or she would not seek to use this provision and might rely on those in new clause 4.
On resourcing and the financial side, there are provisions that can provide reassurance. A county council has to be reimbursed for any expenditure where it prepares a plan because a local planning authority has failed to do so. Likewise, when it is necessary for the Government to arrange for a plan to be written, they can recover the costs.
I recognise—perhaps it is inevitable—that, say, organisations that represent district councils will have concerns about the proposal, but I hope I have provided reassurance. First, I do not expect the provision to be used on a regular basis, and indeed district councils have in their hands the means to ensure that it is never used. Secondly, the Government have sought to address concerns on resident involvement, the adoption process and the skills and resourcing of county councils. Thirdly, the right thing to do in the Bill, given the strong cross-party consensus on the need to get plans in place, is to ensure that, where it is necessary to intervene, the Secretary of State has the powers to think creatively about the ways in which that might happen.
My view in terms of the hierarchy is that the preferable solution would be to direct a planning authority to work with some of its neighbours. If that were not viable, the county council route is an interesting route. My strong view is that the worst option is ultimately that the Government have to step in, intervene and write a plan because, by definition, they are the most distant from the relevant local community. I hope I have provided the reassurance that the hon. Lady was looking for.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for that helpful and detailed response. There are just two issues I would like him to go and ponder. First, what might be put in place to ensure that costs are kept at a reasonable level for district councils, bearing in mind that many local authorities really are struggling financially? Secondly, in the interests of keeping a positive relationship going between the district council and county council, what could be put in place to try to ensure that they work together in the production of a plan? I will come to amendment (a) at the appropriate point.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Format of local development schemes and documents
(1) Section 36 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regulations under Part 2) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In the heading after “Regulations” insert “and standards”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may from time to time publish data standards for—
(a) local development schemes,
(b) local development documents, or
(c) local development documents of a particular kind.
(4) For this purpose a ‘data standard’ is a written standard which contains technical specifications for a scheme or document or the data contained in a scheme or document.
(5) A local planning authority must comply with the data standards published under subsection (3) in preparing, publishing, maintaining or revising a scheme or document to which the standards apply.”
(4) In section 15(8AA) of that Act (cases in which direction to revise local development scheme may be given by Secretary of State or Mayor of London)—
(a) after “only if” insert “—(a)”, and
(b) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “, or
(b) the Secretary of State has published data standards under section 36(3) which apply to the local development scheme and the person giving the direction thinks that the scheme should be revised so that it complies with the standards.”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause enables the Secretary of State to set data standards for local development schemes and documents, requiring these documents or the data they contain to comply with specified technical specifications. It also enables the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London to direct a local planning authority to revise a local development scheme so that it complies with data standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to Government new clause 6, after proposed new subsection (3)(c) of section 36 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, insert—“(d) technical documents.”
Gavin Barwell
New clause 6 will enable the Secretary of State to publish data standards for local development documents and local development schemes. Local planning authorities already gather a range of information during the planning process, and the local government transparency code places a duty on authorities to make openly available data on which policy decisions are based and public services are assessed.
The local plans expert group, to which I have referred several times, believes that there needs to be a step change in how local plans are presented to their users—for example, ensuring that documents are accessible on the web, improving the interactivity between maps and planned policy documents, which is something to which I personally attach particular importance, and exploring opportunities for improving online consultation. The Government agree with that recommendation.
There are a number of examples of where new technology has enhanced and improved engagement in communities on local planning matters. By way of example, my Department funded an initiative that has seen Plymouth City Council’s neighbourhood planning team lead a Data Play initiative to help to open up council data for neighbourhood forums to use, but we can be more ambitious to ensure that planning and planning documents take advantage of what technology has to offer. New technology means that individuals, groups, entrepreneurs and businesses can now access and exploit public data in a way that increases accountability, drives choice and spurs innovation.
A constituent came to my surgery and brought a relative of his who did not live in my area but was involved in the development business. He showed me something that he had produced for a town in Kent. He had essentially taken a detailed Office for National Statistics map of that town and overlaid on to that map the planning policies of the relevant local plan in order to identify 324 small sites that would accommodate at least one unit of housing and that ought to receive planning consent because they appeared to be consistent with the planning policies set out in that relevant local plan. That was hugely interesting, thinking about the experience we all have with small and medium-sized enterprise builders who talk about access to land. My constituent’s relative was planning to go into partnerships with a whole series of small builders in that area. He would secure planning consent and work with the builders to develop out the scheme.
Jim McMahon
I want to endorse the power of open data. Greater Manchester is one of the pilot projects for the Cabinet Office’s open data scheme. That means that across all of Greater Manchester the public can access, completely free of charge, data on utilities, services, natural boundaries and, quite importantly, land ownership. We have discovered that the public sector sits on quite a lot of land that is ripe for development. Of course, the Land Commission will identify that as part of the whole parcel of attempts to get such sites developed. I recommend that the Minister, when he visits Greater Manchester, takes a look at that project.
Gavin Barwell
I am always grateful for tips. I think that I am coming up to co-chair a meeting of the Land Commission at the start of December with Tony Lloyd, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that project to my attention.
I think that we are all localists here, but I hope that we all recognise that, to capitalise on the opportunities provided by new technology and gain maximum value, key planning data need to be published in a consistent format across the country. If every local planning authority opened up its data, but did so using different systems and in different ways, it would be much more difficult for people who want to operate across local planning authority boundaries to make use of the data.
The intention behind new clause 6 is to open up those possibilities, and it will do that by amending the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, with which we are becoming very familiar by now, to enable the Secretary of State to publish data standards. In essence, those standards are detailed technical specifications that local planning authorities must meet for documents that they are already required to publish.
We want to work with representatives of the sector to develop the specification of the data standards. We will then consult local planning authorities on the technical document that authorities will need to follow. Once the data standards are defined, they will apply to all local development documents, the planning documents prepared by a local planning authority; and local development schemes, the timetable for the preparation of the development plan documents that comprise the local plan.
The measure provides a solid basis for creating more accessible and more transparent plans. Opening up public data lies at the heart of a wider Government push for a digital nation, in which the relationship between individual citizens and the Government is transformed. This is a small but important contribution to that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will make a few brief comments on new clause 6 and on amendment (a). The Opposition very much welcome new clause 6. Anything that the Government can do to make planning documents more accessible to local people, the better, because, as I described earlier, some of those documents can be very weighty and lengthy. Being able to access them easily online and in a format in which people can comprehend them more easily will be a good thing and is very much to be welcomed.
I tabled the amendment on technical documents to test with the Minister whether the provisions of new clause 6 will relate to technical documents as well and to ask whether the Government will give some consideration—to reiterate a point I made earlier—to what exactly is needed in technical documents, which are public-facing documents. Obviously, we want people to have as much information as possible about what underpins policies in a local plan, but we also want to ensure that the important points do not get lost in a mass of detail such that people never seek to address, look at or try to understand the documents.
My first point is that I broadly welcome new clause 6, and it will be interesting to see how it works in practice and what sort of data the Secretary of State puts in the standards. I hope that the Minister will learn from his Cabinet Office colleagues about the open data project mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and that the documents are made as successful as possible. Will the Minister deal with the specific issue I have raised about how we might do the whole technical documents thing?
Gavin Barwell
I hope that the hon. Lady and I can have a discussion outside the Committee to test whether we have a point of difference here. In essence, as the new clause is drafted, it defines what needs to be released in legally precise language—as I said, the local development documents, which are the planning documents prepared by the authority, and the local development scheme, which is the timetable for preparation. If she feels that that does not capture some of the things that need to be released, the Government are very happy to look at what other wording can be included. Clearly, however, the wording would need to be precise, so that authorities understand it exactly. Our intention is clear: all the key documents that make up the local plan should be covered by the measure. If, having listened to me, hon. Members feel that there is a gap here and that something is missing, I am happy to talk about it outside the Committee, perhaps coming back at a later date to address it.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Review of local development documents
In section 17 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (local development documents) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a local planning authority to review a local development document at such times as may be prescribed.
(6B) If regulations under subsection (6A) require a local planning authority to review a local development document—
(a) they must consider whether to revise the document following each review, and
(b) if they decide not to do so, they must publish their reasons for considering that no revisions are necessary.
(6C) Any duty imposed by virtue of subsection (6A) applies in addition to the duty in subsection (6).”—(Gavin Barwell.)
This new clause enables regulations to require a local planning authority to review local development documents at prescribed times.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Sustainable development and placemaking
(1) The purpose of planning is the achievement of long-term sustainable development and placemaking.
(2) Under this Act sustainable development and placemaking means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.
(3) In achieving sustainable development, the local planning authority should—
(a) identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”—(Dr Blackman Woods.)
This new clause would clarify in statute that the planning system should be focused on the public interest and in achieving quality outcomes including placemaking.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I accept that this is a fairly long new clause, but it seeks to do something that is really important: to put the purpose of planning in the Bill to be absolutely certain that it is about achieving long-term sustainable development and, critically, placemaking alongside that. It is very much along the lines of, but not identical to what is in the national planning policy framework.
The new clause then says what a local planning authority should do to try to achieve sustainable development: identify suitable land for development; contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community; contribute—this is really important because it often falls off the agenda when considering development issues—to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community; protect and enhance the natural and historic environment; contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008, which I rehearsed for the Committee the other day; promote high-quality and inclusive design, which in my experience planning applications and determinations do not pay enough attention to; ensure that decisions are transparent and involve as many local people as possible; and finally and really importantly, because it often falls out of the decision-making process in applications, ensure that assets are managed for the long-term interest of the community.
Far too many developers in my area and others are very keen and quick to demolish or to enable alterations to be made to important historic buildings, for example, particularly if they are not protected by a listing. Planners often do not consider the short-term nature of some developments and whether they are of poor quality. If planning communities had to think about how they were managing assets for the longer term, some of the truly awful planning decisions that have been made might not have been made.
The Royal Town Planning Institute, in its August 2016 report, “Delivering the Value of Planning”—I am sure that it was one of the first things to land on the new Minister’s desk—pointed out:
“Instead of stripping power from planning, governments need to maximise the potential of planning and ensure that planners have the powers and resources to deliver positive, proactive planning.”
That is the purpose of new clause 9.
Gavin Barwell
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause and for underlining the importance of sustainable development and placemaking. To a degree, we have had this debate before—we had an interesting debate earlier about sustainable development—so she probably knows what I am going to say on the overall issue. However, she raised some interesting specific points about new settlements, which I will come on to in a moment.
The Government agree that sustainable development is integral to the planning system and that a plan-led system is key to delivering it, but we do not believe that it is necessary to write these things into legislation. The new clause seeks to make the achievement of sustainable development and placemaking the legal purpose of planning, and it would set objectives to be met by local planning authorities in working towards that goal. However, the Government believe that that goal is already adequately addressed both in legislation and in policy. I refer the hon. Lady to a statute that I have referred to many times today, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 39 of which requires bodies that prepare local development documents for local plans to do so
“with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Our national planning policy framework is also very clear that sustainable development should be at the heart of planning and should be pursued in a positive and integrated way. Taken as a whole, the framework constitutes the Government’s view on what sustainable development means. It is explicit that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to achieving sustainable development; that the economic, social and environmental aspects that the hon. Lady referred to in some detail in an earlier debate are mutually dependent and that none should be pursued in isolation. The Committee has discussed the NPPF already, so I will not read out a long quotation from it, but the first sentence of the ministerial foreword, written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) when he was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, reads:
“The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development.”
Our commitment there is very clear. That principle runs through all levels of plan-making—strategic, local and neighbourhood. Since decisions on individual applications must by law be plan-led, the goal of sustainable development permeates the planning system.
Although the Government completely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of sustainable development and placemaking, we do not believe that setting a prescriptive definition in statute is the right way forward—not least from a democratic point of view, because it is perfectly possible that a future Government will want to amend the NPPF definition in some way, hopefully an ever more progressive way. In our view, that should not necessarily have to be done by introducing more primary legislation; the Government should be able to do it through policy.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause, but I will say a few positive words on her comments on new settlements. I very strongly agree with those comments. I have had some very good discussions with the Town and Country Planning Association on the issue, and I recently addressed a conference at Alconbury Weald, which is one of the new settlements being delivered along garden village principles. There were people there from all over the country who had bid into our programme to create new garden towns and villages. I very much hope to make an announcement on that shortly.
The Government have taken action fairly recently to try to change the law in a way that helps the process. At the instigation of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, we made some important changes to the New Towns Act 1981 by means of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Those changes make it easier to set up new town development corporations in areas and to extend their objectives so that they can better support the delivery of new, locally led garden towns and villages where that is what local areas want.
I very much agree with the hon. Lady that new settlements will be an important ingredient of our strategy to ensure that we get this country building the homes we need. They are not the only answer because, by definition, a significant number of new homes are involved in the creation of a new settlement, and it takes time to get the build-out of those properties. We also need smaller sites where we are more likely to get rapid build-out. The hon. Lady is right to say that in many parts of the country it will prove much more politically acceptable to plan some new sustainable settlements, with all the community infrastructure and environmental sustainability that is at the core of the garden town and garden village concept, than to slowly expand every existing settlement out.
The Government share the hon. Lady’s thoughts on new settlements, and our garden towns and cities programme is good evidence of that. In fact, one of the first visits I made as a Minister was to Ebbsfleet to see the progress that is being made. It took some time to get under way, but we are now seeing good progress. I am looking forward to visiting several other new settlements throughout the country over the coming months. I very much share the aspirations that the hon. Lady expressed in support of her new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for his response, much of which I anticipated, if not quite all of it. I shall make two brief points.
First, with some of the detail of the new clause I was trying to tease out the extent to which the Government feel that new towns or garden cities have to abide by the garden city principles. For example, I discussed with the Minister’s predecessor the lack of affordable housing in Ebbsfleet, which did not seem to me to be in line with the garden city principles. That is why the new clause contains quite a detailed list and includes things such as community assets, which are not mentioned in the national planning policy framework. Will the Minister ponder on the fact that there is a great deal of detail in the new clause that is not in the NPPF? How might such detail be applied to new towns?
Finally, we have not discussed this much in Committee because the national infrastructure commission was taken out of the Bill, but I emphasise to the Minister that for any new settlement it is essential to get the infrastructure costs met, and met up front. That was a huge problem for Ebbsfleet, which is why there was considerable delay in the build-out. When the Minister comes to putting the final touches to the White Paper, I hope there is something in it about how infrastructure will be funded, because that seems to be a major issue that holds up the development of new settlements. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Funding for local authority planning functions
(1) The Secretary of State must consult local planning authorities prior to the commencement of any new statutory duties to ensure that they are—
(a) adequately resourced; and
(b) adequately funded
so that they are able to undertake the additional work.
(2) In any instance where that is not the case, an independent review of additional cost must be conducted to set out the level of resource required to allow planning authorities to fulfil any new statutory duties.—(Jim McMahon.)
This new clause would ensure that the costs of new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Ability of local authorities to set planning fees—
(1) A local authority may determine fees relating to planning applications in its area.
(2) Subsection (1) applies, but is not restricted to, fees relating to—
(a) permitted development applications, and
(b) discharge of planning conditions.
Jim McMahon
The new clauses are linked: they both relate to resources and funding. New clause 10 would ensure that we carry out a thorough review to understand the situation in local authorities, while new clause 15 would give local authorities the ability to charge more realistic fees for the services they provide.
We have heard a great deal in Committee about resourcing—it was a key feature of the oral evidence sessions—and about how local authorities have been affected by central Government cuts to the revenue support grant and how that has affected planning services. Despite that, local authorities are still subsidising planning services, because they are not able to get enough money from planning fees to cover the cost of those services.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It continues to be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. As I said in an evidence session, I completely accept the principle we just heard described: that planning departments are woefully under-resourced, which is a significant inhibitor to development and to planning consent being granted, and that the most appropriate way to remedy that under-resourcing is for applicants—the developers—to pay higher fees. I agree with the spirit of what has been said. This is a point I raised in the Housing and Planning Bill Committee in this very room a year ago and with both the current Housing and Planning Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). I am completely on board with the principles being described. However, the two new clauses have some deficiencies.
New clause 10 simply says that where there is inadequate resource, a review must be conducted to set out the appropriate level of resource. Setting it out does not provide it. That is simply a statement that there is inadequate resource, so I do not think new clause 10 addresses the problem; it simply highlights the fact that the problem exists, which we all know already.
New clause 15 is very generally worded. It gives local authorities complete discretion to set their own fees. I have three concerns about it. First, there is no limit on how high the fees might go. I accept that the fees are currently too low, but as drafted the new clause would mean that some local authorities might set fees that are unreasonably high and in fact deter development. There is nothing in the new clause to address that concern. Secondly, there is nothing to ensure that the money raised by higher fees will be ring-fenced for the provision of additional planning services, nor, in a similar vein, to ensure that the existing level of service being provided by general taxation is maintained. There is nothing to ensure that the extra money raised leads to extra—that is to say, incremental—levels of resource in the planning department, which is what I want. Thirdly, the new clause does not place any performance obligations on the local authority planning department. It is essential that if a developer or applicant is paying higher fees, they receive improved performance in return—for example, a decision made within a certain period.
While I fully support the principles articulated by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, I am afraid to say that the details do not quite pass muster. I could not support a new clause unless it had those three things: reasonable fee levels, ring-fenced money to ensure incremental service provision and a link to performance. I am deeply sorry that I will not be able to support the new clause, despite the fact that I support its spirit.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s evidence and what he said about the coming White Paper. I very much hope to receive satisfaction when that White Paper is published—I hope in the near future. Should these measures not find their way into the White Paper, I will be an energetic and active advocate of those principles in due course. I would be happy to discuss this further with the Minister.
Gavin Barwell
Let me start by reiterating what I said during previous Committee discussions and in the evidence that my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South just referred to. The Secretary of State and I have heard the concerns of developers, local authorities, professional bodies and hon. Members about stretched resources of planning departments and the calls for an increase in planning fees. We absolutely accept that there is an issue here and we are looking closely at it. I want to ensure that planning departments have the resources to provide the service that applicants and communities as a whole deserve. However, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend eloquently set out, I do not believe that new clauses 10 and 15 are the answer.
Chris Philp
Could we not have a graded scale of enhanced fees, reflecting the size of different applications?
Gavin Barwell
There is already a grading of the fees, but the general presumption is that fees increase by a similar percentage. We could consider increasing some fees and not others for larger schemes, with the caveat that although developers with large applications pay very significant fees, the majority of people who pay fees are individual constituents wanting to put an extension on a domestic property.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and I may have different views on the issue, but it is worth pointing out that we already have the powers to achieve what new clause 15 proposes. The Secretary of State can already provide in regulations for local planning authorities to set their own fees, at least up to the level of cost recovery. I would be surprised if the Opposition believed that fees should go beyond full cost recovery. Earlier this year, we consulted on several proposals for the resourcing of planning departments; we shall publish our response shortly, as part of the White Paper.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to add one other caveat, which does not detract from the central importance of getting the resourcing right. This is about not just money but ensuring that sufficient people enter the profession. In the last year, we have provided the RTPI with funding for a bursary scheme for students undertaking postgraduate planning studies. I very much agreed with the hon. Member for City of Durham when she spoke passionately about the important contribution that planners make with regard to new settlements. Raising the profile and status of the profession and ensuring that planners are seen as not obstructing or stopping development but ensuring that we get the quantity and high quality of development that we need is important in getting enough people coming into the industry.
Money is an issue—I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance that the Government are looking at that—but we must ensure that we have the human resources as well as the financial resources. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Jim McMahon
I am willing to withdraw new clause 10 on the basis that there is universal agreement that local authority planning departments are under-resourced. If there is no need to carry out a review to establish that, it is not an issue that is worth falling out over.
I do want to press new clause 15 to a vote, though, because we need to focus minds. It is all very well saying that there will be jam tomorrow—there is a White Paper coming and it will all be milk and honey—but our planning departments want more.
Gavin Barwell
Clearly the Opposition can test that issue with a vote, but may I press the hon. Gentleman on the point I raised? Regardless of the wording of the amendment, do the official Opposition believe that planning authorities should be able to charge fees beyond full cost recovery?
Jim McMahon
That has never been a suggestion in any of our debates, or from any of the people who have given evidence. The proposal is not to profiteer from developments that enhance the local community, but to reflect the true cost of administering planning applications. Taxpayers should not subsidise applications through their council tax, and developers should get the service they require. I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon South that there is a need to ensure good performance, as there is a contract between developers and the local planning authority. We would be open to that, as would councillors—Councillor Newman was clear that a better relationship would be created between local authorities and developers through the increased fee and through developers’ expectations being managed.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he agree that if the Government do not like the wording of the new clause, they can table another proposal on Report that makes it clear that only full cost recovery is being sought, and that it is about hypothecating for planning any additional money raised?
Jim McMahon
That is an important point. I am a localist at heart. I want to get away from the idea that central Government determine absolutely every fee, charge and activity at a local level. We should be far more inclined to push back and say that if people have an issue, they should take it up with the local authority concerned and have that direct relationship, holding to account locally. It is interesting that we are giving developers a facility that we do not give to members of the public, for example when they are having a relative cremated—we do not determine in Parliament how much those fees should be. We should be a bit more realistic and accept that councils are grown up and mature and that they do such things on a daily basis. That relationship with developers can be done to a great extent.
No one in the Opposition will say that the wording of the new clause absolutely achieves everything we have set out. That was not the intention; the intention was that we put a marker down and that we push the issue, because people have pushed us to push the issue—we heard that in the evidence sessions—and we would be absolutely delighted to see alternative wording come forward at a later stage to tie things down.
Gavin Barwell
I understand that the Opposition want to test the issue with a vote, but I repeat that the law already provides the exact power being sought; it is already in law that we could charge at full cost recovery.
Jim McMahon
It could well be that between now and our next sitting that legislation is used, that the regulatory power of the Secretary of State is enforced and that local authorities are given that ability, in which case we might have a very different debate at our next sitting. As it stands, however, that power is not used, which is why we suggested the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Review of sustainable drainage
(1) Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must carry out a review of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England.—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the planning system on the management of flooding and drainage.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am sure that the Minister was an avid follower of the deliberations on the Housing and Planning Bill, so he will know that the issue raised by this new clause was mentioned in those proceedings, particularly in the other place. The Government have already committed to a review of planning legislation, Government planning policy and local planning policies as they relate to sustainable drainage. Given that, it is appropriate for the Minister to ask, “If so, why make a similar amendment to this Bill?” I hope to give him the answer. The new clause is, first, very much a probing one, so that we may put questions to the Minister about the review, and secondly, to reiterate the importance of undertaking that review before the Secretary of State exercises new powers that the Government have said are made under the Bill in order to bring forward more development.
The review came about as a result of a call for a more strenuous new clause on sustainable drainage that was tabled by a cross-party group in the other place. In response, the Government said that they would carry out a review, although it was much narrower than what was requested by their lordships. We ended up with a commitment to undertake a full review of the strengthened planning policy on sustainable drainage systems by April 2017—narrower than this new clause and the previous one.
The Housing and Planning Minister at the time said:
“The Government are committed to ensuring that developments are safe from flooding, and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems is part of our planning policy, which was strengthened just over a year ago. Our policy is still new, as I outlined in more detail last week, and I am willing to consider issues further as it matures. I am happy to review the effectiveness of current policy and legislation”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2016; Vol. 609, c. 463.]
That commitment was given in lieu of the amendment in May this year.
Gavin Barwell
Not for the first time, the hon. Lady has accurately predicted what I was going to say. The Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary. Section 171 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of planning legislation, Government policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England. Rather than just leaving it there, perhaps I can provide some reassurance on where we are with all that.
My Department has formally commenced work on the review and that section of the 2016 Act. The review’s primary purpose is to examine the extent to which planning has been successful in encouraging the take-up of such drainage systems in new developments. More specifically, it will look at how national planning policies for SUDS are being reflected in local plans; the uptake of SUDS in major new housing developments, including the type of systems employed; the use of SUDS in smaller developments below the major threshold; the use of SUDS in commercial and mixed-use developments, including the type of systems employed; and how successful local plans and national policies have been in encouraging the take-up of SUDS in housing developments. It will engage with a wide range of stakeholders to gauge how the new policy and arrangements are bedding in and to analyse options for further action to improve take-up.
My officials are working on gathering evidence for the review, in collaboration with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. We aim to substantially complete our evidence gathering by spring 2017 to ensure that the findings of the review are available to inform the Committee on Climate Change’s adaptation sub-committee’s progress report on the national adaptation programme, to be published in summer 2017.
It might be worth saying a brief word about the substantive policy issue. The background to the review relates to a non-Government amendment that sought to remove the automatic right to connect to a public sewer for surface water, in a bid to push people into adopting SUDS. Even before the changes to planning in major developments that came into effect in April last year, the NPPF set out some strict tests, which all local planning authorities are expected to follow, to protect people and property from flooding. As part of that policy, priority should be given to SUDS in all developments—except very minor ones—in areas at risk of flooding. The policy has now been strengthened to make clear our expectation that SUDS will be provided in all major new developments, whether or not in a flood risk area, unless they can be demonstrated to be inappropriate.
As well as strengthening policy expectations, we have extended national guidance to set out considerations and options for sustainable drainage systems, including in relation to their operation and maintenance. Lead local flood authorities have been made statutory consultees for planning applications for major developments, to ensure that local planning authorities have access to appropriate technical expertise and advice.
I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for City of Durham that there has already been a significant policy shift in the right direction and that good progress is being made on the review and on meeting our undertakings in the Housing and Planning Act 2016. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister is right that I tabled the new clause primarily to get an update on the availability and use of SUDS. There is cross-party agreement that they should be employed when new developments are at risk of flooding, and indeed in wider circumstances. We look forward to seeing the report on the climate change adaptation programme in summer 2017. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Planning obligations
(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 106 (planning obligations) paragraph (d) at end insert—
“(e) requiring that information submitted as part of, and in support of, a viability assessment be made available to the public.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This new clause would ensure that viability assessments are public documents with no commercial confidentiality restrictions, except in cases where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am not sure that the Minister and I will be in such agreement on new clause 12, but we shall see. The new clause would ensure that viability assessments are put into the public domain so that they are available for public scrutiny. The Minister will know that the Opposition have long raised this issue. Labour’s view is that for the public to accept new development, they have to be absolutely certain that viability arrangements for a site—particularly safety integrity level requirements and section 106 requirements—are all that they should be.
I know from my own experience the kind of situation that can make local people sceptical about development or turn the public against a new housing development: for example, when they do not get the amount of affordable housing they think they should get; or when a contribution to a local primary school is suddenly no longer applied by the local authority because of viability issues. Although I am happy to take on trust a lot of what local authorities do, we would all accept that, as a general principle, local authorities need to be as transparent as possible in all their decisions. I am entirely uncertain as to why the Government are of the view that viability assessments should not be in the public domain.
The new clause would also help the public by giving us all a better view of any uplift in the value of land across the country. In some areas developers can provide more of a payback to the local community than in others because of the price of land. It does not always vary depending on the value of land—there will be other local circumstances. However, it would be good to have a more detailed understanding of what is being delivered, in terms of a planning gain, and why that particular level has been arrived at, than we currently have from the information that is in the public domain.
Viability assessments are used by developers to argue their planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Of course, we find that a lot of viability assessments are used to reduce payments, although not always—that would be completely unfair. The Royal Institute of British Architects has commented:
“Despite the Planning Practice Guidance encouraging transparency, developers may opt not to disclose their viability assessments to the public on grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is widely accepted that this is sometimes done in order that they can negotiate down their S106 obligations without public scrutiny. As a consequence, affordable housing may be reduced and the quality of the built environment may suffer.”
We know that there is a huge lack of affordable housing across the UK, so it is absolutely vital that developers are not allowed to deliberately dodge their obligations to contribute to affordable housing through viability assessments. It is equally important that they can be held accountable by local people.
National planning policy guidance states that when it comes to viability, plans should
“present visions for an area in the context of an understanding of local economic conditions and market realities.”
In many places, local economic conditions mean that some affordable housing is required. In fact, that is the case in most areas; I was trying to think of some areas where it might not be required, and it is really hard to do so because there is such a desperate need for genuinely affordable housing. I am talking about genuinely affordable housing, not the starter homes that the Government have put into this category, because £250,000 is certainly not affordable for many people in my constituency.
Dr Blackman-Woods
In Durham city, which has a very different level of average house prices than in the county, the average house price is probably about £200,000 to £220,000.
Gavin Barwell
In that case, I put it to the hon. Lady that constantly quoting the maximum level for starter homes across the whole of England is not a particularly accurate rendering of what the policy will mean in her area. The average house price in the city is £200,000, so the average starter home in the city will be about £160,000. That certainly would not be affordable to everybody living in the city, but it would clearly bring home ownership within the reach of a greater proportion of her constituents than currently have it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not sure that that is how the policy will work in practice. I spoke to the developer of a new development in Durham where really quite attractive family homes are being built. The prices range from £220,000 or £230,000 up to £310,000. Without the developer having to change anything at all that it does to roll out the development, it will meet its requirement under the starter homes initiative and will not have to deliver any affordable housing. That is the effect of the policy in an area such as mine. Those homes would have been delivered anyway. I am not sure that the policy is adding to the quantity of genuinely affordable homes locally, which is what we really need.
The point I was making was that greater transparency about viability arrangements would help us to understand how planning gain is arrived at and give the local community, which is at times concerned about how section 106 obligations get watered down, more confidence in the planning system overall. It would help communities to accept development more readily if they understood what the costs were and how they stacked up. Sometimes, such transparency would lead to more sympathy for developers than they currently get. The public often assume that the developers are making thousands and thousands of pounds from each development, but in some areas of the country where land prices are more difficult for developers, that might not be the case at all.
The new clause could help developers by making it clear how their obligations were arrived at. It would also help the public to understand how the finances and the housing market in this country stack up. On top of that, it might create circumstances in which, when the public are concerned about a particular development, better negotiation can take place between the developer and the local community about what can be delivered and in what way. At the moment, those conversations simply do not happen because viability assessments are kept confidential.
Gavin Barwell
As the hon. Lady said, new clause 12 relates to section 106 planning obligations and viability assessments. Planning obligations are normally agreements negotiated between the applicant and the local planning authority. They usually relate to developer contributions to infrastructure and affordable housing, and reflect policy in local plans.
The purpose of a section 106 planning obligation is to mitigate the impact of otherwise unacceptable development, to make it acceptable in planning terms. Local planning authorities may seek viability assessments in some circumstances, but Government guidance is clear that decision taking on individual applications does not normally require an assessment of viability. Developers may submit a viability assessment in support of their negotiations, if they consider that their proposed development would be rendered unviable by the extent of planning obligations sought by the local planning authority. Some authorities make such assessments publicly available, which I suggest shows the hon. Lady that there is no need to introduce legislation. Local authorities are currently perfectly free under the law to do what she wants them to do.
It is important that local authorities act in a transparent way in their decision-making processes. My main point of assurance to the hon. Lady is that there is already legislation—principally the Freedom of Information Act, but also the Environmental Information Regulations 2004—that governs the release of information. If necessary, that legislation enables people to seek a review if they are not satisfied by the response of the local authority and, ultimately, to appeal to the Information Commissioner if they remain unsatisfied.
Jim McMahon
If a developer does not want that information to be made public because of the commercial confidentiality of the scheme, surely it would be exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.
Gavin Barwell
That is my understanding. I am not an expert on that legislation, but I understand that that would be a judgment for the Information Commissioner to make. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the problem.
Sometimes developers will argue that the information they provide in order to give the authority a proper insight into the viability of a development is highly commercially sensitive. Therefore, they would not want to see that released in the public domain. If we were to change the law requiring all viability assessments to become public, there is a danger that the quality of information that local authorities would receive as a result would be significantly diminished.
I hope I have provided some reassurance. I will end with two other quick thoughts. There is a read-across from the amendment to the review of the community infrastructure levy, which is currently sitting on my desk, which looks at both CIL and the interaction with section 106. There are some powerful arguments to look at reform in this area so that we are more dependent on a nationally set charge that is locally collected and spent locally and less dependent on individual section 106 contributions, where there is much more scope for the kind of long-running argument that does not necessarily work in the public interest.
Although it is slightly tangential to the amendment, because the hon. Lady was principally concerned with affordable housing I want to set her straight on the starter homes policy. We are very clear on what the policy is, which is to require developers to provide a proportion of homes—we have yet to set out what that will be—at a 20% discount to what the market price would otherwise be. The figures bandied around in London are different because the limit is different in London—this is frustrating to me—so I regularly hear from people who have had colleagues from the Labour party contact them, who say, “Who says £450,000 is affordable?” but that is the maximum limit in London. In New Addington in my constituency, homes sell at well below that, and starter homes will sell at a 20% discount to what they would otherwise sell at in New Addington.
I will not claim for one moment that starter homes will ensure that home ownership is affordable for everyone who currently cannot afford it, but there is compelling evidence—if the hon. Lady is interested, I can write to her with the figures—that it will allow a significant proportion of people who currently privately rent to access home ownership who would not otherwise do so.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Will the Minister update us on the Help to Buy programme? I understand that that has collapsed.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady is wrong. It has not collapsed; it continues to help large numbers of people own their own homes. There were two different Help to Buy schemes: the mortgage guarantee scheme and the equity loan scheme. The mortgage guarantee scheme, which applied to all homes, was basically a market intervention because after the great depression of 2008-09 there was a point in time when people with low deposits were not able to access mortgages. The scheme was an intervention to deal with that. The market has now adjusted and it is possible to access those kinds of mortgages.
The equity loan scheme applies when people are looking to buy a new build property. That scheme is still running because there is a strong public policy benefit. Research evidence shows that something like 40% of those purchases are homes that otherwise would not have been built. The scheme is therefore helping to drive up the supply of new housing, which ultimately is the critical issue we are debating. The publicity the hon. Lady has read—to reassure her, she is not the only person to have got the wrong end of the stick—was about a particular part of the Help to Buy scheme that is coming to an end at the end of this year. The equity loan scheme is continuing, and it will continue through to at least 2021.
I will not go much further, because this is slightly tangential to the main issue, but I want to reinforce strongly and publicly that the starter homes policy will bring home ownership within the reach of a significant number of people who would not otherwise find it affordable. It is not the only answer—other things are required, and I am happy to accept that affordable housing should be about not just helping people to afford to buy, but shared ownership and affordable homes for people to rent. We should not say that the starter homes initiative is not making a contribution to helping people afford a home of their own.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Let me give the Minister a bit of reassurance in terms of our understanding of the starter homes initiative. Opposition Members understand what the words “up to £250,000” mean. We were not suggesting that every single home will be £250,000 under this initiative or £450,000 in London, nor were we suggesting for a minute that the initiative does not reduce the cost of home ownership for a number of people. I do not recall mentioning that.
I was making the point that in lots of our constituencies, reducing a home from £250,000 to £200,000 does not make it affordable housing for many people. Enabling developers to discharge their affordable housing obligations through this mechanism means that money might not be available for other obligations under section 106 of the 1990 Act. Because of the viability of a particular site, we would not know that, because we were not seeing the viability assessment.
Gavin Barwell
It is important to get this on the record. The hon. Lady is quite right that if we set the requirement for starter homes too high, it could squeeze out some other important forms of housing. However, one difference that is worth teasing out is what we understand by the term “affordable housing”. It has been used traditionally in housing policy to mean council and housing association housing. When most of our constituents hear the term, they are interested in how they can be helped to afford a home of their own. To me, policy that makes home ownership affordable for people who otherwise would not have been able to afford it is not the only important type of affordable housing but is absolutely affordable housing.
Dr Blackman-Woods
International uses of affordable housing are usually something like three times average income. In my constituency, that would make a home affordable at about £75,000 or £80,000 if it was one person, and for a couple, double that. That is by international standards. For a lot of people on average incomes, that puts starter homes out of their reach, but that was not the point I was raising.
Now it is my turn to tell the Minister that we are doing a piece of work on what affordability means in the current housing environment. When we have completed that, I will be happy to share it with him. New clause 12 seeks to make viability a bit more transparent. The Government’s own review of the NPPF and guidance came forward with the suggestion of guidance being stronger on the transparency of viability assessments. I direct the Minister to Lord Taylor’s work and ask him to ponder on it. That was, as far as I understand it, an independent review of the Government’s guidance. There is general agreement that it would be really helpful to our whole development system if viability was more transparent. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Review of permitted development rights
(1) Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must review the provisions of all General Development Orders made under the powers conferred to the Secretary of State by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 granting permitted development rights since 1 January 2013.—(Jim McMahon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the permitted development rights granted since 2013.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jim McMahon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 14 intends to finally hold the Government to account on the extension of permitted development rights. We have heard a lot about our aspirations for quality, decent neighbourhoods and places where people aspire to live and are proud to live. Extension of permitted development rights flies in the face of that, because it allows a free-for-all for developers without checks and balances, local control and long-term stability and quality in mind.
Kevin Hollinrake
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I should have done earlier.
Is the hon. Gentleman implying that every single development that is commercial to residential is not done well? In my life prior to entering politics, I dealt with many schemes that developers brought forward because of permitted development rights. They resulted in excellent developments that met market demand, which is key. I do not deny that there will be problems on some occasions, but is he trying to argue that every single development is an inappropriate home not built to the right standards?
Jim McMahon
I suppose the hon. Gentleman could listen to me, or he could listen to the architect who said of the Housing and Planning Bill:
“This new Bill only addresses speed of delivery: short-sighted political gain at the cost of long-term quality.”
The professionals are saying that quality is an issue. I can point to conversions in Greater Manchester, which I know well. Some have used the extended permitted development rights to produce a quality development. That will almost certainly be true, but we can all point to one and try to hold it up as an example of many, when of course that is rarely the case. However, as we are seeing, the Government just do not know. It is okay to shine a light on the evidence provided by professionals, but the Government do not know the answer. If a more regulated planning system were brought back in, council planning departments would definitely be able to get a grip on quality and see it through.
That is all we are asking for. It is not about passing judgment on whether premises should or should not be converted from commercial to residential; it is about ensuring quality, affordability and long-term sustainability and starting to plan communities and neighbourhoods, instead of letting developers get away without paying their fair share. I cannot see why anybody would argue against that. It would highlight the best developers who contribute to community and society. Fair play—they make a profit doing so, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there are some people who do not play the game fairly and who extract as much cash from it as possible, with absolutely no interest in quality or community. Bringing measures back in to take firmer control of that has got to be in the long-term interests of this country and of our towns and cities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Would my hon. Friend like to point out to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that on the internet, one can find the 10 worst permitted development loopholes, and they are truly shocking? I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman see the examples after the Committee has ceased this sitting. They point to some serious breaches of good planning policy that emerge from an overzealous use of permitted development.
Jim McMahon
That is a fair point. The topography of a town like Oldham, in the beds of the Pennine hills, is a good example. Under the current permitted development rights, height restrictions apply only at the start of a development. If someone who lives on a slope builds out to the maximum height allowed, by the time they get to the bottom of the hill, the property could be 10 m high. Under permitted development, they would be allowed to do so, with no thought for the consequence to the people living below. There are issues, not just about conversion from commercial to residential but about the character and nature of our communities and where people live, and the impact that neighbouring properties can have on each other.
We have heard a lot about quality, and about how neighbourhood planning would go a long way towards giving community a voice. The Bill does not do that. It takes away that voice, it takes away control and it takes away the quality that we all aspire to. We think that new clause 14 is important. It is not a probing amendment; we are absolutely committed to seeing it to a vote, and I hope that we get some support on it, because it is in line with the debate that we have been having.
Gavin Barwell
To a degree, we had a debate on the principle of this earlier when we debated clause 8, so I will not rehearse all those arguments. However, I will pick out three or four points from what the hon. Gentleman said and then make one substantive point about the wording of the amendment, which I think is relevant.
I think that I am quoting the hon. Gentleman correctly—he was quoting somebody else; they were not his words—in saying that the allegation is that this is all about speed and political benefit at the expense of quality. I think I captured the quote correctly. There is no political benefit at all; the benefit is providing homes to thousands of people who otherwise would not have them. There absolutely is a debate to be had about quantity versus quality. I suspect that that is an ongoing debate in housing policy, but it is worth putting it on the record that there is no political benefit to the policy. The Government are trying to drive up the supply of housing in this country to meet the urgent pressing need for extra homes. That is what the policy is about.
The hon. Member for City of Durham gave some terrible examples she had seen of how the policy had been misused. As constituency MPs, we all see examples of where people have gone ahead and done things without getting planning, and the enforcement system has not picked it up, and we also see examples of developments that planners have approved that are of appalling quality. Even if we lived in a world where every single change to any building, however de minimis, had to go through a formal planning process and acquire planning permission, that would not be a guarantee of quality, and we should not pretend that it would be.
Ultimately, the argument is about the extent to which members of the Committee believe there is an urgent need to build more homes in this country. I have touched on this before, but several issues have been raised in this debate on planning conditions and permitted development. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw was speaking on Second Reading on the duty to co-operate, but despite the Opposition’s rhetoric, saying that they recognise the urgent need for more homes in this country, they oppose policies that help deliver those crucial homes.
Rather than re-run the argument of principle, I make one point on the wording of the new clause. When we came to clause 8, despite our differences on the principle of permitted development, there was agreement that it was a good clause because it would ensure that data were available not only to the Government but to all of us, to enable us to assess whether the policy was a good policy. The new clause would require a review of the policy before the Government could commence the provisions of the legislation—before we have the data we all agreed were crucial. The hon. Member for City of Durham was nodding gently as I made that point.
The Opposition may well want to press the new clause to a vote as a vote on the principle of permitted development, but its wording is not sensible as it would require that review to happen before we had the crucial data that we all agreed were needed to make a judgment on the policy.
Jim McMahon
I think the Minister has just made the argument for dismissing the driving test. Why not just let everyone get in a car, van or truck and take to the road? Some might crash and some might kill people, but it is fine, because some will not and there is no evidence base. That is a nonsense, of course. We all have examples of good-quality development and bad-quality development, and we can always use a single example to make a point, but the issue is that the controls are not in place.
The Government do not know the answer to the question, which is why we had the debate on putting measures in the Bill to enable us to understand the quantum of the developments, but it is beyond that now. If the argument was that the measure was about kick-starting development to get the economy going and put roofs over people’s heads, because that is what was required at the time, and it was a short-term measure, then there can be a debate about that. There cannot, however, be a compromise on the long-term sustainability and viability of communities, and the affordability or quality of housing.
The measure goes against a lot of what we have been discussing, and it beggars belief that the Government seem happy to continue walking down this road with a blindfold on and no idea of what is in front of them. That is a dangerous way to draw up housing policy, and that is why a vote is important. If we get to a stage at which the Government have better wording, they should bring it forward, and we can have a debate about it. Provided that the wording resolved the issue, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham would support it. However, it is important that the issue is tackled and that the Government show a sense of urgency.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As the Minister is carrying out lots of reviews, I thought he might like to add another to his list and review the way in which local authorities are able to determine amendments to see whether he can give local planning departments a bit more flexibility in how they deal with amendments, and in particular what they consider to be material or non-material considerations. Does the Department have a view on allowing split decisions to be taken on planning applications? A local authority may say, for example, “We want to approve this application, but there is one bit that we do not like. We are going to approve the rest of the application, but we want this one bit to be changed.” I am simply asking a question of the Minister. Further, does he have a view about local authorities being able to charge additional fees where an amendment means that they have to go out to public consultation again, or a lot of officer time has to be put into determining whether a particular amendment should stand?
Gavin Barwell
The Minister is not particularly welcoming of another statutory requirement to have another review, as the hon. Lady may have predicted, but perhaps I can get a better understanding of her concerns outside the Committee, reflect on those and come back to her.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am happy to write to the Minister with some of the documentation from the Planning Officers Society, which is exercised about the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
County councils’ default powers in relation to development plan documents
1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.
2 Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 3 to 8.
3 In the heading for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or county council”.
4 After paragraph 7 insert—
“Default powers exercisable by county council
7A In this Schedule—
‘upper-tier county council’ means a county council for an area for which there is also a district council;
‘lower-tier planning authority’, in relation to an upper-tier county council, means a district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the upper-tier county council.
7B If the Secretary of State—
(a) thinks that a lower-tier planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and
(b) invites the upper-tier county council to prepare or revise the document, the upper-tier county council may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.
7C (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by an upper-tier county council under paragraph 7B.
(2) The upper-tier county council must hold an independent examination.
(3) The upper-tier county council—
(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and
(b) may also give directions to the lower-tier planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.
(4) The upper-tier county council may—
(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or
(b) direct the lower-tier planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.
7D (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 7C(2)—
(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the upper-tier county council, and
(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).
(2) The upper-tier county council must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 7B or 7C(4).
(3) The lower-tier planning authority must reimburse the upper-tier county council—
(a) for any expenditure that the upper-tier county council incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 7B and which the lower-tier planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) for any expenditure that the upper-tier county council incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 7C(2).
(4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the upper-tier council may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the council considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”
5 (1) Paragraph 8 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, or
(c) under paragraph 7B by an upper-tier county council.”
(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)—
(a) for “or 6(4)(a)” substitute “, 6(4)(a) or 7C(4)(a)”, and
(b) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
(5) In sub-paragraph (5) for “or 6(4)(a)” substitute “, 6(4)(a) or 7C(4)(a)”.
(6) In sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) in paragraph (b) for “or 6(4)(a)” substitute “, 6(4)(a) or 7C(4)(a)”, and
(b) in the words following that paragraph for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
6 In paragraph 9(8) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”.
7 In paragraph 12—
(a) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the upper-tier county council”, and
(b) for “or the authority” substitute “, the authority or the council”.
8 In paragraph 13(1)—
(a) for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or an upper-tier county council”, and
(b) for “or the authority” substitute “, the authority or the council”.
9 In section 17(8) (document a local development document only if adopted or approved) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) is approved by an upper-tier county council (as defined in that Schedule) under paragraph 7C of that Schedule.”
10 In section 27A (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority) in both places for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or county council”. —(Gavin Barwell.)
See the explanatory statement for NC5.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Gavin Barwell
Mr McCabe, may I take a minute of the Committee’s time to say thank you as we come to the end of our proceedings in Committee? I thank you and Mr Bone for the way in which you have chaired these proceedings, which I am sure all Members have appreciated. I also thank the officials, the Clerks who have assisted you, Hansard and the Doorkeepers for their support.
I thank all members of the Committee. We have had good debates to which nearly all Members have contributed fully. We on the Government Benches are grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill. I thank my officials for their work on the Bill and the Bill documents, which has been useful in scrutinising the legislation, and certainly for their support of me with their words of inspiration as I have tried to answer questions for members of the Committee.
Perhaps I could single out two people. I learned earlier today that this is the first time my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has sat on a Bill Committee as a Back-Bench Member. I hope that she has enjoyed the experience, and that the Whips are looking forward to putting her on many more such Committees. Finally, perhaps reflecting on whence I came, I thank our Whips. I have had to do their job for a number of years, and have had to sit through proceedings silently, unable to say anything. I think Members on both Front Benches are grateful for their support and help in getting through our proceedings.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Like the Minister, I thank you, Mr McCabe, and Mr Bone for chairing this Committee with good humour, which is much appreciated. I also thank the Clerks for their excellent service and their help in drafting and tabling amendments in the right order and, in particular, in the right place, so that we could debate them. I marvel at the Doorkeepers. I do not know how they manage to sit through our hours of deliberations with such good humour. They keep us safe and secure. I thank Hansard for turning around a great deal of material in such a short time. I also thank the organisations that gave detailed evidence to the Committee, and those who turned up to give oral evidence. I hope that they think we have done justice to the points they raised.
I thank my fellow shadow Minister for his input, and both our Whip and the Government Whip. The way in which our proceedings have been conducted is a tribute to the way they organised the business. Although they are not all in their place, I thank Opposition Committee members—and indeed Government Members—for their excellent speeches and, sometimes, passion, even though we sometimes disagreed. Finally, I thank the Minister for his responses, which were very helpful at times, and I thank his hard-working civil servants, who have had to put up with all our questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.