Airport Capacity
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for his comments. It is important, now that we are moving into the realms of the specifics, that he mentioned noise. In the Statement I alluded to the fact that technology is moving on and gave examples of new aircraft that are coming on board. The reality is that in 2030, with the measures proposed, fewer people will be impacted by noise, from current estimates of 770,000 to 610,000 people. There are reasons for that. I mentioned the night bans that will run for six and a half hours. I also talked about the £2.6 billion package which includes a £700 million proposal to insulate homes around the airport. An additional £40 million is proposed to insulate and ventilate schools and public buildings. Of course I take on board my noble friend’s comments. I believe that as we move through the process of consultation and scrutiny of the proposals in the Commons and then on to the vote, and as the NPS comes to its final stage, many of the issues that my noble friend raised will be factored in.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as living under the flight path, and as president of HACAN—the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. The announcement acknowledges that the current constraints do not fully work for residents by talking about “more reliable respite”. The Minister will be aware that the measurements of noise do not accord with residents’ experience. I am sure he will also agree that the best predictor of the future is past experience. In asking what confidence residents can have in assurances and conditions, I specifically ask the Minister about the words in the announcement that,
“the government proposes new legally binding noise targets”.
Can he explain how robust “legally binding” targets will be? Can he also tell the House whether the Government have ruled out, or will rule out, a sixth terminal?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, the noble Baroness has probably answered her own question. By saying that something is “legally binding”, we mean we will ensure that it is enshrined.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I accept her proposition, however, that the judgment is often made by those who live under flight paths and have aircraft flying over them. The noble Baroness talked of her own experience. I assure her that I too have experience of planes flying over my own residence. I underline that the Government have outlined the importance they are attaching to the issues of noise and noise pollution. I also mentioned that we will consult on proposals on the noise commissioner and noise commission. That will be part and parcel of the consultation process. There are other measures such as setting up the local neighbourhood engagement board, which the commission detailed. That will also be part and parcel of the NPS and will be factored in as it makes its progress through the House of Commons.
Asylum Seekers
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that it is taken into consideration, but our obligation to asylum seekers is to meet their essential living needs and determine their applications as fast as possible, which we do in a significant number of cases.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Government have been very careful to keep the distinction between asylum seeking and migration, which, in his Answer to my noble friend, the Minister seemed not to retain. Would he agree that that is important? Would he also agree that it is important not to drive asylum seekers underground, perhaps into the black economy, which denying them the opportunity to work may well do?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I hope that I made the distinction between immigration and asylum seeking very clear indeed. I accept my noble friend’s point about the need to avoid driving asylum seekers underground, but that is trumped by the need to avoid making seeking asylum an attractive proposition.
Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Faulkner and what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I declare an interest as I am involved with war memorials around the United Kingdom. Metal theft has meant disaster for those memorials, and it has caused immense damage, sadness and pain to a number of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, suggests that this amendment is the price that we might have to pay for the Government to agree to this legislation, and that it would speed things up. Surely it will slow things down and surely things would happen much faster if we did not have this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, following the deregulation point, I am concerned about the message that we are sending out to the world. We are asking people to put in place a new system for such a short period. To anyone who does not know the intricacies of parliamentary proceedings, this must seem a very odd thing to be asked to do.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
I should briefly indicate the support of these Benches for the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. Small country churches and churches in urban areas, which often have small, very poor congregations, find themselves at the forefront of these metal thefts over and over again, and then they find themselves hard-pressed to get the insurance cover that they need. If these amendments go through, the development will be viewed with great alarm and great distress by many people in small churches up and down the country.
Police Service: New Governance Structure
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has stopped even if he has not concluded. I had in my head that the title of this debate was about challenges facing the police service. In fact, it has a rather more neutral title. Noble Lords on the Cross Benches will not have the experience that the rest of us have of a shoal of invitations arriving during July and August to speak at our party conferences about different topics. I was very struck in the case of the Liberal Democrat conference by the stakeholders who used the term “opportunities”. They were organisations dealing with victims and young people—of course, young people can also be victims. They generally sought debate on the role of police and crime commissioners in the context of the criminal justice system and the rehabilitation landscape. I take my cue from their attitude. Let us not talk down police and crime commissioners. Let us look for the opportunities.
Of course, the agendas will be set substantially by local communities. One of the challenges for police and crime commissioners will be to work up mechanisms to listen to the public, with things like effective public consultation arrangements—I stress “effective” as those of us who have been used to democracy as well as bureaucracy are used to seeing what is badged as consultation actually being information—including people who are likely to be victims of crime, and working out performance indicators. I am not a particular fan of targets but there is a place for indicators which properly reflect local priorities. There is also sharing performance data with the public.
Police and crime commissioners will have quite a lot of local autonomy, which they will need to use to the best effect. One mechanism, which I have seen to some extent in local government, may be to have what in the jargon is participatory budgeting. That uses the budgeting exercise as the basis of a debate with—again, I hate the word—stakeholders as to how the budget should best be spent and involves those who have a stake in it in working towards the decisions. The budgetary role of the commissioners will be one of the most important, even if it is not immediately one of the most obvious.
The local community includes, of course, stakeholders and partners. Most organisations will fall into both categories. Local authorities will be one of those. I think that I have referred before in this Chamber to the work undertaken in the London Borough of Sutton where, for the best part of a decade, the local authority has worked in partnership with the police—crucially, having set up a structure to deal with community safety that has a single line manager—and where multi-agency liaison has been worked on as part of the interface between the Safer Sutton Partnership board and participant agencies. It seems from all the figures, to refer back to performance indicators, to have been very successful. Other partners will be within the wide area of criminal justice.
Earlier this week, noble Lords discussed community sentencing in the context of the Crime and Courts Bill. There was much reference to restorative justice, which is to get its first legislative recognition, and to the importance of the understanding of that by the police. I heard quite a lot about that at the party conference meetings that I mentioned. The new structure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, said, includes police and crime panels. I have said before that despite their limited statutory role, to which she referred, I hope they will be ambitious. They need good access to experts and to others who can assist them in their work, even if they cannot co-opt them. They also need access to both information and to face-to-face meetings with senior officers. Scrutiny is an exercise which I have always thought of as being pro-active, not simply reactive.
Big personalities have been mentioned. I have always been instinctively uncomfortable with personality politics but big personalities have the opportunity to act as leaders, and leadership, as the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, said, is important in this new structure. There is nothing wrong in itself with an eye-catching initiative; if that is all it is, yes, but if it takes people forward then it may be a good thing. Leadership is important to bring to the local community things that may not immediately be obvious to it, although it should be. Trafficking is an obvious example.
We have heard about the NCA and the College of Policing. One has to admire the Home Secretary who, by sheer force of personality, seems to have brought these two things about. That is not to say that I am not enthusiastic about the National Crime Agency but, as she and others have said, these amount to a lot of change that is not evolutionary. I hope that we do not lose professional development in all this. The police are professionals and I want to keep that in the forefront of my own thinking.
I end by saying that having been defeated in my attempts to persuade the Government that these changes should be piloted, as we are going to see them across the country, that does not mean to say that these changes should not be evaluated and assessed. There should not be an expansion of the role of police and crime commissioner until that has been done. Changes are happening but let us make sure that they happen as well as possible.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for focusing on this timely issue just before the country—in very large numbers, we hope, but perhaps they will not be—goes to vote for its local police and crime commissioners. As a declaration of interest, I remind the House of my service for some years in the police service.
We are here to debate the challenges to the police service in the new landscape. This is not necessarily the time to debate too deeply the rights and wrongs, perceived or otherwise, of the concept of police and crime commissioners; we have done that at length in your Lordships’ House in previous months. I personally have supported the concept; I am wary of many of the pitfalls but hope that they will not present themselves. In the short time available, I want to pick up on three issues that I think will define the whole landscape of policing as the new PCCs emerge and begin to make their mark on what is certainly a fundamental change to the whole landscape of policing as we know it. I want to pick up on the lack of a five-year plan, on the National Crime Agency, which has just been mentioned by the previous speaker, and on the whole issue of professionalism.
First, a five-year plan does not exist. Unlike the Armed Forces, which have a national defence review where every five years the whole of the international landscape is scanned, against which one then tries to measure the response that our Armed Forces may well need to adopt to counter growing threats and situations, we do not have one in this area and we never have. It has been a matter of some dismay to me that we do not. Funnily enough, the PCCs, who are essentially elected on local issues, are in a strangely privileged position to be able to address this. I hope that they will not fall into the trap of parochialism. Rather, I hope that, as they almost certainly will, they body together as a grouping of 40 or so individuals nationally every so often to discuss mutual problems. I hope, when they meet as that national body, that they will reflect on the fact that no national business, no commercial concern, with 40 or more regional divisions—that is how one might well look at the police service in this instance—would ever exist without a regular scan of the distant horizon. In business they would need to look, as indeed they do, at demographic issues, socioeconomic issues, climatic issues, the international dimension and so on. There is a need for that, and if the Home Office has not done it—no Home Office under any Government whom I know of has ever done this—then there is a role for the PCCs to do it, and to help with their own local input against the broader canvas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she was not too sure that she supported the National Crime Agency, if I understood her correctly. I understand where she is coming from as there are indeed doubts about it, but I personally have long supported the concept of it. There is a power for the National Crime Agency to direct the PCCs if push comes to shove, but I hope that that is a stick that will remain in the cupboard. I look for, hope for and probably anticipate that there will be a good deal of mutual understanding between the NCA on the one side and the PCCs on the other, seeking to fit the local issues into the national landscape.
With regard to national and international crime, the national landscape is a problem, and I shall give the House an indication of how big that problem is. Recent estimates are that 30,000 individuals, grouped together in 7,500 groups, are involved in organised crime affecting the UK and its interests. Over 50% of the 7,500 groups operating in the UK are involved in drug trafficking. Last year, Serious Organised Crime Agency-led activity recovered over £450 million worth of drugs in seizures.
The National Fraud Authority indicates that organised crime group activity has resulted in £9.9 billion-worth of fraud committed against individuals in this country. Cybercrime is confidently estimated to be in the order of £27 billion. The last figure I shall weary the House with, in order to put this into a more human dimension, is that the UK Human Trafficking Centre’s assessment is that there were 2,077 adult and child trafficking victims in the UK last year.
All that will have to be played out face to face with the local issues that the PCCs will deal with. I recognise the tensions that may exist, but I indicate my support for the National Crime Agency. It has to be with us, and I hope it will work in harmony with the PCCs.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, let me make it clear that I support the National Crime Agency.
Lord Dear
Finally, I turn to professionalisation in the service. We have recently received two reports from Mr Tom Winsor, who was recently appointed as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Those reports, taken together, produce the most radical review of policing we have seen for at least 50 years. There has been opposition, perhaps understandable opposition, from the Police Federation, and the media interest on the days of the reports’ publication seemed to focus on compulsory fitness tests for police and little else. I support compulsory fitness tests, but there is much more in the reports than that. Mr Winsor seeks, quite rightly, and I support him in it, to sweep away outdated practices in the police service and attract the best recruits to it. His stated aim—and I ask the House to reflect on this—is to create a white-collar profession rather than a blue-collar job. I think that that is long overdue. He seeks to replace the Police Negotiating Board—the PNB—with a salary review body. That is admirable. The PNB has served its purpose very well over the years, but I believe that it is no longer fit for purpose. It needs streamlining; it needs to flatten the rank structure; and particularly, it needs to reward those who contribute massively to the police effort rather than those who are along just for the ride.
I shall touch briefly on two-tier entry. I have spoken before in your Lordships’ House on my support for a streamlined, two-tier entry system. Winsor talks of a three-tier entry system, but I shall leave that for another moment. The two-tier entry system deserves a fair wind because there is no doubt in my mind that we do not get a sufficient number of Russell group graduates coming into the police. The police are not seen as an obvious career of choice in that group. We need to recruit people at that level who have the essential character qualities of integrity, personal value sets, common sense and moral courage and who are leaders, not just managers.
There is one other issue I shall touch on: the college of policing, not the Bramshill staff college. I support it and hope it will see success in coming months and years. It is badly needed to set standards, ethics, style and purpose for the police in a way that has not altogether been clear before. It is something that one hopes will eventually grow to command status and respect like the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and so on. In that landscape, PCCs will have a vital role to play. They may find their role difficult at times, but I believe that they will contribute much.
People Trafficking
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the number of speakers today may reflect an increasing awareness of trafficking and modern slavery. I have heard it said that that awareness is somewhere like where domestic violence was 20 years ago. I stress that because awareness must be the foundation of tackling the issue. It was only when I was in the middle of one of my own speeches at a conference that I realised that children whom one often used to see at major road junctions in London advancing with a soapy squeegee were probably themselves slaves.
I mean awareness not just on the part of the general public but right through the many relevant agencies, down to the very front line. It always seems quite difficult that the UK Border Agency, whose job is to protect our borders, which is fairly close to keeping people out, needs to be particularly sensitive to possible victims of trafficking. There is something of a disconnect there.
The sensitivity of all of Government and society must extend to what is needed for the victims to recover. We are the host country, and in many cases the people who are trafficked here think that they are coming to a better life. In some cases the trafficker thinks so, too—the mother living in poverty in Africa who is sending her daughter to live with an auntie in London.
I have one point regarding the care of victims, and I appreciate that there is a new consultation paper on the protection and support of all victims. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, mentioned 45 days, but that may be far too short a time for a traumatised young woman, say, to decide whether she wants to return to her own country. Within 45 days, she may not even have got to the point where she can discuss her own situation.
Trafficking is a huge-scale crime and big business with individuals at its heart, and they need both justice and care. As my pumpkin has not quite arrived, I have time to thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for introducing this debate.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The House is debating government Amendment 223CA, with which Amendment 223D is grouped. Therefore the noble Baroness is not able to move that amendment separately.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think that my noble friend realised that when she started to speak. Some things become automatic as the evening goes on. I support my noble friend, who has made a very powerful case, as she has done on previous occasions.
I thought that I might be able to say tonight that the Lady at the Dispatch Box doth protest too much, but I suppose that Earls can protest too much as well. I find that as this debate goes on, the hole that the Government are digging is getting deeper and deeper. The position is not being improved by further re-emphasis. Can you have further re-emphasis? I think that we have got to that stage now—we are up to about three lots of emphasis. By adding this amendment, which says the same thing again, I become more and more concerned.
I do not want to repeat points that my noble friend Lady Parminter has made. However, the clause must mean something. It must mean something not otherwise provided for. I find it quite puzzling that the Government take the view that they need to use primary legislation to bring the matter, in the words of the noble Earl at the last stage,
“quickly to the attention of concerned parties”.—[Official Report, 20/7/11; col. 1420.]
I really do not believe that concerned parties need primary legislation to have this and the answer to it brought to their attention. The noble Earl told the House he thought that it would always be helpful, but it is not the practice, for legal advice to be shared. I asked innocently—it was not intended to be disingenuous, but probably sounded it—if we could have sight of the legal advice. I do not want this to sound ungrateful, but what we heard from the legal advice was not helpful, having got to this stage. We did not hear argument; we heard assertion. I am sure that it was not unsupported, but what was shared with the House was simply assertion.
Finally, the noble Earl talked of this certainly doing no harm. My fear is that it will do harm because it must be interpreted as meaning something that has not been the case hitherto. I support my noble friend.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the Minister deserves complete support. When we debated this in Committee, I made the point that the clause did not change the law at all. My noble friend made this clear and stated that there had been confusion, which the amendment was designed to remove. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke eloquently. Her noble friend Lord Greaves suggested that perhaps, in order to remove doubt, it might be helpful if the Government could clarify the extent of the clause and explain that it did not put financial considerations above all others, but that it was entirely for the planning authority to determine what weight should be given to them. That has been done. I find myself very unsympathetic to the argument advanced by my noble friend Lady Hamwee that by going on and trying to make this clear, my noble friend is digging himself deeper into a hole. That is very unfair. He recognised the concerns that were expressed in Committee and moved an amendment that puts the matter beyond doubt. He deserves complete support.
Baroness Hamwee
Perhaps I may clarify that I am not suggesting that the hole is of the noble Earl's making.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, that reminds me of a song about digging a hole, but perhaps we should not go into it. In Committee, I attempted to search for a compromise on this and to help the Government to clarify what they were saying. I spend a lot of time trying to do that on Bills. The Government should be congratulated on and thanked for the huge amount of time and effort that was put in by Ministers and their civil servants in the Bill team, and by their ministerial colleagues in the House of Commons, to try to sort out a bit of a mess—perhaps more than a bit of a mess—that has resulted from what some of us would say was the rather hasty addition of this clause at the end of the procedures in the House of Commons. They made a huge effort, and I have no doubt that the amendment moved by the noble Earl is an improvement. It helps a bit. My noble friend says that it takes him further into a hole, but I am not sure that that is the case; it probably keeps his head above water. However, it is our clear view after reflection throughout the summer that far and away the best thing to do would be to remove the clause altogether. That is why I support the amendment eloquently spoken to by my noble friend Lady Parminter.
I want to make a couple of points—and one point in slight jest, which I will make now. My noble friend Lord Attlee said that one argument for accepting that this clause should remain is that it does no harm. I must say that I am so used to Governments telling us that amendments that we put forward may not do any harm but are not necessary that I think the boot is on the other foot now. Every time I move an amendment, while the noble Lord is taking the clause for the Government I will look forward to reminding him that my amendment does no harm and therefore should be passed with acclamation.
I would like to make two serious points. There is a very clear difference between CIL and Section 106, for example, which are themselves tied to an application and cannot be untied in any way, and the new homes bonus, which is not tied to a particular application and can be tied, as I think my noble Friend, Lord Attlee, said, only by a clear decision, a resolution presumably, of the council that will receive the new homes bonus. That is the real difference. The noble Earl said quite clearly that it can be taken into account only if it is tied to the application by the receiving council.
I have been thinking about this. In a possible case study, which may happen more often than people might imagine, a big development may result in a lot of new homes bonus and a significant amount of money coming to that council. The use of that money might be politically controversial and contested within the council. In advance of that money coming, the council, the executive, the cabinet, or whoever it is that makes decisions about its allocation, might corporately pass a resolution that makes it quite clear that when it comes, and if planning permission is given, the money will be tied to a project linked to that development. However, it is controversial and the opposition on the council does not agree to it and campaigns against it. Then there are some elections and the opposition wins them, and this large amount of money is taken out of that project and put somewhere else. Once a planning decision is made and issued, that is it; it cannot be revisited by the council. However, decisions about how to allocate money can be revisited whenever the council wants to revisit them. What happens if the development is clearly given on the basis, say, of flood damage or a new swimming pool in the middle of the estate that is linked to that development, and planning permission is passed and the council later changes its decision about how to use that money? They might have a huge budget crisis. Perish the thought that any council has a huge budget crisis nowadays, but if does have a huge budget crisis, the council may find that it simply has to put this money into the general fund in order to keep its head above water. It is quite clear that that could happen. What is the legal position? I do not believe that anybody can do anything about it, except that that planning permission will have been given on false pretences.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, not having participated in proceedings on this Bill hitherto, I hope that the House will none the less tolerate me in making a very few remarks in response to what I have listened to this afternoon. It is desirable that the definition of sustainable development should be filled out, not least because of the suspicions that many people currently entertain in this country that sustainable development is no more than a euphemism for development at all costs.
I know that that is not the Government's intention but that is unfortunately the impression that has gained some currency. It would be desirable to fill out the definition in order to reassure people and in order to provide better clarification and guidance for planners and would-be developers as well as for the communities that would be affected by the development.
We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for having tabulated so many of the components of sustainable development in an appropriate sense. I agree also with the right reverend Prelate that, however we formulate this, it ought to be clear that the spiritual dimension of our human existence is something that is to be supported and sustained in this process of sustainable development. I am also attracted to what my noble friend Lady Andrews had to say about incorporating references in appropriate wording on cultural and heritage matters. One might also add that it would be desirable for a definition of sustainable development to incorporate language relative to design, and that it should stress the importance of good design processes in achieving sustainable development.
I think that what I am saying illustrates that we are not yet in a position to agree on a definition of sustainable development, other than in the succinct—perhaps too succinct—Brundtland definition, which the Government use in the draft national planning policy framework. I am also wary about incorporating rhetoric and aspiration in legislation. It seems to me that our legislative tradition in this country is to be as specific as we can about legislation, to enable the courts to interpret it in a practical and expeditious fashion.
I agree also with the warning uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that if an elaborate definition is placed upon the Bill, there is a danger that it will be almost an invitation, if not a challenge, to litigants to try to exploit it, whether their intention is to prevent or promote development—although the former is more likely. If the practical upshot is that development would be quite seriously inhibited by placing a more complex definition of sustainable development on the Bill, then perhaps we should be very careful indeed about doing that.
It seems to me, therefore, that if we are to fill out the definition, the right place to do this would be in the national planning policy framework itself, which is the gloss upon the Bill. This is the document that explains and interprets to the lay person, and all sorts of practitioners, the policy of the Government and what they seek to achieve through this legislation. Again there are difficulties, partly because there is not yet a sufficient consensus about how to define sustainable development. At least if you have a national planning policy framework, it is possible to update it from time to time without having to resort to all the processes of primary legislation.
Even if we put a complex definition into the national planning policy framework, that may still make the process more susceptible—too susceptible—to litigation. It depends upon the legal standing of the national planning policy framework, but I think that it does have some sort of legal status. So, I just counsel caution about this. I really do counsel caution about trying to place a satisfactory definition on the face of the Bill, and I think that we should even be rather cautious about trying to elaborate the advice given—the guidance—in the national planning policy framework.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps it is a little impertinent of me to deny a compliment that has just been given by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, to my noble friend Lord Greaves, but he congratulated my noble friend on tabulating the items, when I think my noble friend would say that he copied it out. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to familiarity and we will all have recognised the words.
I would like to use this opportunity to ask the Minister a question. I have heard her say on a different occasion that two of the five principles are not as appropriate to planning as they are to other parts of government. These two principles are the use of sound science and the promotion of good governance. For my part, I must say that they both seem entirely appropriate. On the subject of science, let me just mention climate change and flooding. Governance, after all, is used both in the creation of local plans and in dealing with planning applications, as well as more widely. So they both seem to me to be appropriate. If that is to be a part of the Minister’s response, I hope that my noble friend can spell out why that is so. I am open-minded to hearing it, but I will be interested to hear the detail.
Lord Berkeley
I have some worries about the whole concept. Many noble Lords have talked about what should and should not be on this list. It is a very good list, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, certainly deserves a lot of credit for putting it together, if that is the right word. But there is not so much in it about development. There is lots about sustainability, which of course I love, but my slight worry is that—notwithstanding the debate going on at the moment about the presumption in favour of development, which I am sure we will talk about later—if there is to be development, it has to be done in an environmentally friendly way but must also be reasonably cost effective.
A Treasury report was produced by Infrastructure UK last year. It said that the civil engineering developments in this country are probably 60 per cent higher than they are in Germany, and goes on to say that the labour costs are much the same. The conclusion that one should probably draw from that is that the difference is to a large extent taken into account with the complexity of planning. Of course we need to have planning but, as my noble friend said just now, if we go too far down that road it will be a lawyers’ bonanza and take a very long time and nothing will get built. In the end, we are in the end going to be competing with other European and world countries about what we produce.
It is useful to have a definition. I think that we need more in it about the development side, so that is sustainable. But we must also recognise that one of the benefits of having something like this in the Bill, and possibly the national planning policy framework, is that it enables us and other people to help to hold the Government to account. Governments in the past 20 or so years, ever since John Major apparently invented the world “sustainability”, have all paid lip service to sustainability and a green environment until life got difficult. We have the 80 per cent carbon reduction target. The last Government made some attempt to go towards them, and this Government are also making some attempt, but if you look to where they have got to, in my view, many people will think, “Thank goodness that we will have retired and may even be dead by the time it comes into force in 40 years’ time—so it does not really matter”.
Yesterday the Department for Transport announced a trial of longer lorries. That is great for the environment, is it not, and great for road accidents and the quality of life? There is need for much more joined-up government right across these things, and some clauses like this would help us to hold the Government to account. I believe that we can get growth and development in a sustainable way, and this is a good contribution towards it—but possibly putting it in the national planning policy framework would be easier, and we could have a much better debate about what should be in it.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in respect of the proposal that two or more employees could issue a challenge to the authority, which I would much rather were not in the Bill at all. Failing that, my Amendment 197CB, would at least require a majority of the employees affected to support such a move. I really hope that the Government will take that seriously. It does not seem appropriate that two or more employees—it might be a director or deputy director; it could be people lower in the organisation—could simply take a decision which would affect a considerable number of people without their consent and outsource a whole section of the local authority. That seems wholly unreasonable and not at all compatible with the general thrust of the Bill, which looks to secure support for a range of measures on the part of communities. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that there is an issue here and will accept one or other of the amendments. My preference would be that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but, failing that, I would be delighted to accept his support for the fallback position.
However, I am less persuaded by his Amendment 197DA. I quite take the thrust of his intention, but I am not sure the wording is very compelling. The amendment refers to the body concerned being required to be,
“actively engaged … in the area in which the relevant service is being provided”.
Let us take as an example a county area and services for the elderly or domiciliary care. There might be an organisation in one corner of the county carrying out that service. It would hardly meet the description of being,
“actively engaged in the area”;
that is, across the area in which the relevant service is being provided. It is difficult to define in the way that the noble Lord seeks.
I am therefore unenthusiastic about the way in which the noble Lord reaches his objective, although I am bound to say that I am not sure that I can offer a better alternative. However, in respect of the previous two amendments, the Government need to rethink their position to facilitate at the very least a majority decision by those who would be affected by a move of two of their colleagues. I cannot see any logical reason why the Government should resist that.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have later amendments on the same issues. In relation to Amendment 197DA, I would like to say to my noble friend that I think that experience in the particular activity that is at issue is less important than the geographical link. I take his point about wanting a connection, but I am not quite convinced that it is the particular connection that he has mentioned. However, by and large I am entirely with him on this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, framed this in terms of urban needs, and I myself am very much an urban and suburban person. He also mentioned the comfort of state provision. Since this debate has morphed into discussion not just about two employees, but about whether two employees might, as it were, sell out to Tesco, it does remind me that there is often a very sharp divide on this issue. People do not like Tesco, but they do like being able to shop in Tesco, which creates quite a dilemma.
My question for my noble friend is whether there is any room for local variation in a local authority’s response to such an expression of interest? I will come to my other questions when we come to my amendments later.
Lord True
My Lords, there is a gentle sense of irony in the representative of the workers’ party, and my noble friend who is yearning for the days when his party stood for worker control, expressing so much concern at the prospect of employees, however few—less than half, I gather, is unacceptable— expressing an interest in undertaking a function. It seems to me that we are witnessing major change in communities and local government and that it is perfectly reasonable, indeed it is already happening all over the country, that groups of workers and employees are coming forward with propositions to set up social enterprises, to take on existing bodies and to take on other activities. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to welcome the withdrawal by my noble friend of regulation in the previous group of amendments, which I do welcome. Yet here we are being pushed to prescribe and put blocks in the way of people putting forward expressions of interest simply on the basis that they might be employees of the organisation and, still worse, that they might secretly be in cahoots with capitalism.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is the other group of key amendments in this part of the Bill. I speak to four others in the group, and there are two more in the group from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. These amendments are all about the process of procurement once an expression of interest has been accepted from the relevant body. The problem is that once the expression of interest is accepted, the procurement procedures roll forward automatically. The kind of procurement may vary according to the scale of the operation. It could be very small—for example, taking over a local pocket park. It could be modest, such as meals on wheels in a village. It could be a bit larger, such as running a village hall, an estate community centre in a town or a local library. It could be quite substantial, such as providing adult domiciliary services across a district, refuse collection and recycling across a large borough, or county library services. So the challenge, at least in theory, could apply to a wide range of services.
All these processes will have to be carried out according to basic standards such as openness, transparency, non-discrimination, equal treatment and proportionality, which, apart from anything else, are imposed by the relevant European directive, which was transposed into the public contracts regulations in 2006. As I understand it, and perhaps the Minister can confirm this, the underlying system is unchanged relating to contracts by local authorities that contract out services.
In addition, we have the standards of auditing and supervision by, at the moment, the Audit Commission, by the system that will replace it, by the councils’ own standing orders and by financial regulations. As I understand it, the community right to challenge contracts will all be bound by existing regulations in this way. The key cut-off is imposed by European rules and public contract regulations. Those regulations are set out in euros so the monetary threshold varies a bit according to how the euro goes up and down, but I am assured that it is around £156,400. That is the threshold over which the annual value of a service must be open to tender throughout the European Union.
The fear and the danger is therefore that the community right to challenge could open the way to a new and rather random form of compulsory competitive tendering and the takeover of relevant services by large commercial companies, even if that might be against the wishes of the principal council—the “relevant authority”, in the jargon of the Bill—and the community group, the parish council, the charity or whichever relevant body put forward the bid.
Again, we have had a large number of government assurances. Ministers at all levels have stated time and again that that is not their intention with this provision. If councils want to test the market, as they are able to, they should do so clearly and deliberately, not by accident under the community right to challenge. That is what Ministers in the Government assure us is their position. However, it is not clear how that can be prevented in the Bill as it stands. May we have a clear statement that the Government do not intend the community right to challenge to be a way in for large commercial companies, and that clear guidance will be given to councils on how this can be prevented? May we please know how it can be prevented?
Meanwhile, the amendments suggest two possible ways forward as safeguards. Amendment 197EZA says that the relevant authority can reject an expression of interest for a service above the annual cost at which a full tendering process is required. In other words, if it goes over that threshold, that can be a reason for saying, “No, we’re not going to put it out to tender because of the consequences”. In practice, this is the £156,000-odd threshold imposed by the public contracts regulations.
Amendments 197EB, 197EC and 197ED would allow a council, instead of going for competitive procurement by tender, to carry out a full and open public service review. New subsection (3A), which we are proposing, reads:
“A service review carried out for”,
this purpose,
“must include a consultation process with the relevant body, users of the service and any bodies representing them, employees engaged in providing the relevant service and their representatives, residents of the area and such other persons that the relevant authority considers appropriate”.
In other words it would be a very open, transparent and, one hopes, effective process, looking at how the service was provided to see whether the challenge from a particular group could in fact provide the service more effectively, economically and advantageously for the community.
These amendments may not be the best ways to provide safeguards against the problem that we have identified, but that there is a problem seems to be the case. There does not seem to be an answer to the problem that if you go for a competitive procurement you are bound by the European rules and regulations, and if it is a service that is worth more than £156,000 each year, then there is a real risk that you are putting it out to a commercial company. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendments 197FA and 197FAA in this group, and I am well aware that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box will tell me that what I am proposing is not lawful. What I am proposing is that a local authority can apply its own criteria essentially in assessing the expressions of interest, and include whatever restrictions and requirements it thinks appropriate—to very much the same aim, the same end, as my noble friend. I have no expectation about the amendments being accepted but, like him, I am looking for reassurances.
My noble friend the Minister said in response to the previous group of amendments that an expression of interest by two or more employees would not be a proxy for a commercial organisation, and referred to that in terms of abuse. I wrote down what he said about that but confess that, having printed off the policy statement to which he referred some weeks ago, I have completely forgotten about it, and it is probably somewhere in a pile of papers on my desk at the moment. What he said was that those expressing an interest would have to show that they are capable of providing a service, that they had engaged with the staff, and that what they were doing was not vexatious or frivolous. I have to say that I would have thought that any commercial organisation will very easily satisfy those criteria.
A concern to which my noble friend Lord Greaves has not referred is that having set up the arrangement—and this of course is not just something that would apply to the two employees; it could apply to a community body as well—it could then sell the business or dispose of the shares in the company which it had formed to run the service. I have not seen any way in which this could be prevented. I suspect that I would be told that it would be improper to prevent it. But it concerns me that it is taking this proposal a good deal further than appears on the face of the Bill.
I turn to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 71, the first dealing with an expression of interest, the second dealing with a procurement exercise. Both talk of the authority considering—and I will come back to that term—whether the activity would,
“promote or improve the social, economic or environmental well-being of the authority’s area”.
Well indeed, and well and good. But consider: it is not bound to apply those factors. It needs to consider them. I dare say that means that it must be able to show how it has considered them.
Turning to subsection (7), we are told that this,
“applies only so far as is consistent with the law”.
There is no particular assurance at all here, if I may say so. Subsection (7) refers to the procurement exercise but I am worried that an authority may well read this as applying to the expressions of interest as well. In general, I suspect that local authorities will need quite a lot of reassurance over how they apply these provisions.
I speak only for myself in this. I am finding it difficult to articulate some of the unease that is almost more instinctive than technical. However, general expressions of reassurance and consolation may not go quite so far, technically, as to amount to real reassurance. I have rambled enough. I hope that the House has a sense of my unease.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I shall be brief. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises important concerns. The other amendments in the group seek a process to deal with these concerns. Without these amendments or something else, it is all rather open to interpretation, which is not a good place for us to be. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the sense of unease.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, are absolutely right. They make provision for a consultation process with the users of a service, their representatives and residents of the area. If the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is unable to accept these amendments, will he tell the House when he responds how he squares that with his previous remarks about localism? I genuinely feel that the Bill is confused. In some cases it gives power to the local community, in some cases it takes it back. There is a lot of regulation. It is all a bit confused here. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could address that point in particular.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) A relevant authority that is considering an expression of interest from a relevant body may require the body to provide any information that the authority considers desirable in connection with its acceptance or rejection under section 71(1).”
Baroness Hamwee
I shall not speak at much length. This amendment was tabled at the last stage as well. It would provide for a relevant authority being able to require whatever information it thinks desirable. I dare say my noble friend will confirm that it is not necessary to state this because it is implicit or provided for elsewhere. The reason I am moving it is because I want to quickly comment on some of the things he said in response to the last group. As it was Report stage I could not come back on them then. He said, “It’s all about community”. But what my noble friend and I are saying is that we fear that it is not. I very much welcomed his comment that guidance might well say, “Make your own minds up”. That is exactly what one would want to see. But I wonder if I could suggest to him that guidance might include some sort of flow chart which would assist authorities to understand what they can do and what they cannot do, and what direction they have got to be thinking in. I also say that my noble friend Lord Greaves’s point about how a procurement exercise allows for a tender from the authority—from the in-house service—is very serious. It may be one of those things where the answer is so obvious that none of us can see it because it is blindingly obvious. If it is not obvious, and if it is not answered in a way in which the Minister will understand we would regard as satisfactory, then it is so serious that we must not lose sight of it. We should not discard it now and we should return to it at Third Reading to ensure that it is entirely clear. I hope that will not be necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
These matters are grouped together. I thank the noble Baroness. There are four amendments in the group and two have not been moved. This is the third one and I take it that the fourth will not be moved. On that basis I respond to my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 197FC would enable a relevant authority to ask a relevant body for any information it considered desirable in deciding whether to accept or reject an expression of interest. The amendment is unnecessary. Clause 69(1) already enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the information to be included in an expression of interest. The majority of respondents to the consultation broadly agreed with our proposals on this and the policy statement placed in the Library of the House sets out the information we intend to specify be included in an expression of interest. This information will enable the authority to decide whether there is one or more grounds for rejection. If expressions of interest do not include any of the required information, we would expect relevant authorities to take a common-sense approach and simply ask for it.
This amendment would enable authorities to place additional requirements, and potentially a disproportionate burden, on relevant bodies, and treat expressions of interest from different relevant bodies differently, which would be unfair and could potentially leave authorities open to challenge. If the experience of implementing the community right to challenge shows that a relevant body may need to provide further information to enable authorities to take a decision on an expression of interest, then we can consider whether we need to amend the regulations to allow for this.
In the circumstances, I trust that my noble friend will feel she does not need to press this amendment. Following her other comments about guidance, I am sure that the resources of the department will provide guidance, flow charts and material in any form that clearly gets over to authorities the information that they need. As I have indicated all along, I believe that all these proposals are right, but, in the event, it is about trust and it is about communities; it is not about exposing big contracts to organisations under the umbrella of something which has been done for communities. I trust that everyone has got that trust and that it will work in this way.
Baroness Hamwee
I thank my noble friend for that response. Of course, I shall not press the matter, but I note that he talked in terms of the Secretary of State making regulations which will allow for certain information to be requested. I am looking for a little more individuality than that. However, I shall use this opportunity to add a coda to my point about the in-house service and procurement. I am not asking for an answer now, but I shall put the question on record. In order to take part in it, would the in-house service have to form a separate, new entity in order to be able to bid? That would seem to involve a lot of extra bureaucracy and work, which I do not think any of us would want to see. I shall put my noble friend out of his agony and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I welcome this debate and I am glad that the noble Lord was able to table his Motion. I should say that I am a member of the Merits Committee. It seems to me that the sort of points that have been made in this report are just the sort of thing that the committee is there for. I welcome the debate, although I do not welcome the fact that it is necessary. With regard to the issue of the production of the impact assessment—I will come on to the substantive issue because I cannot resist it—it is not the first time that I will have talked about the importance of scrutiny. It is important both to those who are the proponents of a proposition and to the opponents. The first bunch wants to get it right and the second bunch wants to pick holes in it; there is a unity of purpose there. Making the point, as the Merits Committee has done and as the House is now asked to do, is worth while only if the culture changes and this sort of error or omission—call it what you like—is not repeated. This is the sort of point that the Merits Committee has often had to make by way of a warning shot. The sanction from the committee is to bring the matter to the House.
I recall reading the agenda item and, in order not to make the Hansard writers blush, I will not use the language that I used then when I saw the figures, which are startling. The noble Lord referred to many of them: the 232,000 estimated reduction against the 70,000 to 80,000 estimate given only six or seven months ago, and a net cost of more than £2.4 billion with the UK Border Agency estimated to receive about £160 million less in fee income on the basis of the option chosen against the “do nothing” option.
That takes me to my next point. The committee does not make this point but I will. The options given are not a range but simply the polarised options of “do nothing” or “do this one other thing which we, the Government, are proposing”. So there is a steer to what one might describe as the right answer. So although this was a consultation, it is more akin to some sort of choice. It is not easy or indeed even possible for Parliament to assess what it is being asked to agree in this way. The Merits Committee report was very measured, and I quote from Paragraph 10:
“The Committee recognises the difficulty in developing the estimations of the likely costs and benefits of the changes, particularly given some of the gaps in the data and the potentially complex range of impacts. However, it is not clear from the IA how the findings from the consultation have fed into these estimations”.
That is a pity because the questions asked in the consultation were interesting. Most of them asked for a “yes”, “no”, or “don’t know” answer but one of them asked:
“In the light of the proposals described in this document, what do you think will be the main advantages/disadvantages, including any financial impacts, to you, your business or your sector?”
That is just the sort of thing that should be made publicly available. That is the purpose of the consultation. The background questions which consultees were asked would also have been useful in informing the debate. They were asked:
“How many students (approximately) started new courses at your institution in the 2009/2010 academic year?”
and,
“What is your estimate of overseas students (non-EEA) as a proportion of your total student population?”
As I say, that is just the sort of thing that we should be able to see to put the changes into context.
In the end, of course, what matters is the policy. Many noble Lords across a number of debates, including many of my noble friends, have made very clear our real concerns with some of the policy objectives. Even if we support a reduction in net migration, we do not believe in clamping down on student visas. We do not believe that is in the long-term reputational interests of the UK, nor its social, political and wider economic interests. I am not convinced it is even coherent within its own terms. I have commented before on the term “the brightest and the best”. That begs an awful lot of questions. We cannot assess the success—a term I use deliberately—without knowing how many students leave at the end of their course, which we—I do not just mean Parliament—are not adequately equipped to do. There is an increase of one when an individual arrives in the country and when he leaves there is a decrease of one.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl could clarify—if not now, then at a later time—the basis of the use of the responses to the consultation. I was not entirely clear whether he was saying that it was factual information that was not used, and that other sources were used, or whether it was something wider than that.
Earl Attlee
My main point was that the consultation was responding to the policy rather than giving us detailed data on the likely effect of the policy.
Localism Bill
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(2A) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (2) should not be read to imply that any greater weight should be placed on local finance considerations than on other material considerations.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves, who tabled this amendment, is unable to be here this afternoon—sadly for us, maybe not for him. Clause 124 deals with local finance considerations in connection with applications for planning permission. It provides that local finance considerations may be considered in dealing with those applications in so far as they are material to the applications. My noble friend’s amendment provides:
“For the avoidance of doubt”,
the relevant subsection,
“should not be read to imply that any greater weight should be placed on local finance considerations than on other material considerations”.
My noble friend Lord Greaves knows, because we discussed it yesterday, that this is not my preferred option, but I am very happy to move it in order for it to contribute to the debate.
We have heard that, in this reference to local finance considerations and their materiality, there is no change to the law and that this is merely a matter of clarification. Indeed, that is what the amendment says. Perhaps it is necessary to make it clear that the materiality of financial matters should be no weightier than other material considerations. However, it is important—indeed, essential—to be clear that planning permissions cannot be bought and sold and that they should not be thought of as being able to be bought and sold.
The issue is topical because of the new homes bonus announced by the Government. In their response to consultation on the bonus in February this year, they said:
“Local planning authorities will be well aware that when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission they cannot take into account immaterial considerations. The New Homes Bonus cannot change this, and nor is it intended to. Local planning authorities will continue to be bound by their obligations here”.
This bonus is not the first matter on which finance and planning have come together on a list of matters which a local planning authority has to consider. Noble Lords will be familiar with Section 106. The not bought or sold issue was stated unequivocally in Circular 05/05, which deals with Section 106:
“The use of planning obligations must be governed by the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold. It is therefore not legitimate for unacceptable development to be permitted because of benefits or inducements offered by a developer which are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
That is fine so far and, I should have thought, fine as regards any new source of finance. However, Clause 124 raises a number of issues, of which I shall refer to just two. One is material considerations. That term has been defined in case law, not statute, since the birth of our town and country planning system in 1947. The second raises the issue of how government incentives are to influence planning decisions. The Royal Town Planning Institute commented on this. It stated:
“The RTPI recognises that the use of incentives to stimulate development is at the heart of the Government’s approach to growth. However, we firmly believe that the point at which incentives should affect policies and cultures is when local authorities and communities are preparing plans for their areas—not at the point of deciding on the individual applications that deliver that plan”.
As I said, that is the view of the RTPI and it is my view as well.
If there is no change in how material considerations are to be dealt with, not only, in my view, is it not necessary to provide for this in legislation but it is positively harmful. Clause 124 must mean something and I think that it can mean only the elevation of financial considerations above others. Can this not be dealt with by circular or guidance in the way that these matters are currently dealt with?
I have a question for the Minister, of which I have given him notice. Can he explain the case law or anything else that has led the Government to take the view that the position needs to be stated in primary legislation rather than simply confirmed in guidance? If it has to be referred to in primary legislation, why is there not just an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the local planning authority so that it has regard to local financial considerations so far as they are material to the application, as well as regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as they are material and any other material considerations?
I hope that I have been clear about the danger that I believe exists in trying to address a problem that is not there. By doing so, you suggest that there is an issue which you are denying—have the Government stopped beating their wife yet? My strongly preferred solution is to remove the clause entirely, but I am very happy to move my noble friend’s amendment because it raises issues on which I hope the Government can reassure the Committee today. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has put a very convincing case. Like others, when I received a flood of representations from a number of environmental and other bodies that the clause opened the door to buying planning permission, I thought to myself that that cannot be right. I looked into it and, of course, I found that the provision is really intended to be a restatement and clarification of existing provisions. I shall not repeat what my noble friend has said about the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and her reference to any other material considerations.
In his absence, I say to my noble friend Lord Greaves, who has taken a great deal of time during the passage of the Bill to put his views to the House, that I think this is a brilliant amendment. It exactly meets what we want to say. We need a restatement of the law and it would not surprise me at all if my noble friend indicated that that was the legal advice which the Government have had. However, it is right to say that finance is no more material than any other consideration that a planning authority has to take into account. I would be perfectly happy with the clause if amended in this way.
My noble friend Lady Parminter’s opposition to Clause 124 standing part forms part of the first grouping on the list and I thought, “Gosh, this must be important”. I think this matter has been blown out of proportion. Nothing in this suggests that planning permission can be bought and sold. Other provisions, which we discussed earlier, such as the community infrastructure levy, the whole question of Section 108 and various other measures, are all important planning considerations. As I understand it, this clause with the amendment is exactly what the House should want. I very much support it.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord poses a good question that will help to illustrate the situation. He describes a situation where the planning application is for more houses than are provided for in the local development plan. The extra money arising from the NHB and the CIL from those houses can be taken into consideration if it is used in relation to those extra houses. If the money is going to enhance a railway station that would support those extra houses, it can be taken into consideration, but if it is to support perhaps a swimming pool on the other side of town, it cannot be taken into consideration because it is not relevant to the application.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Parminter’s opposition to the clause standing part reflects not just the concern of her organisation but the concern felt outside the House about the provision. Of course I will withdraw the amendment and I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement that the matter will be looked at again.
I shall comment on one or two of the points that he has made. On his example of the parkway station, the reaction around me was, “But that would enable development, and moreover it seems to be suggesting that economic growth is more important than the provision of extra housing”. It may be an interesting example but it has not quite yet convinced us.
The Government put the clause in the Bill in order not to allow uncertainty to linger. However, guidance can be produced quite quickly. It can be issued on the day that the Act comes into force or it can precede it. Although I understand that the Government wanted to reassure people, there are other mechanisms for doing so.
The Minister said that it was important to provide clarity. I hope that I have helped at any rate to suggest that the clause does quite the opposite—instead of clarity it provides more confusion and concern. We will ensure that my noble friend Lord Greaves is aware of the praise for his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.