Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Grand Committee

That danger, and the uncertainty created by the Bill in careless government statements, can be avoided by the simple expedient of excluding the public forest estate from the effects of the Bill. That accords with government policy, it is common sense and it follows the approach taken by the Government in respect of property of the Crown. I realise that the noble Baroness might not be able to address all my concerns today, especially those that relate to freemining, but I would be grateful if she could write to me.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, an interest in forestry has brought me along today. I am hugely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for what she said; indeed, she made many of the points that I wanted to make. I will therefore say just one or two things. In starting, I have come hotfoot from the General Synod, where we had a debate last night on Magna Carta, which I had to read. I discovered that three of the clauses there are about bishops and barons bringing the Executive to account on the forests—in those days King John wanted to make them bigger so that he could take more land. I now find myself here as a Bishop among Barons and Baronesses, reflecting on that.

I have had a number of representations on this area. It is an important issue for us, for the many reasons that the noble Baroness laid out. It is akin to our green belt; we still have it but there are many incursions into it. This is about how we protect it and how we protect forestry. It is true that work was done by my colleague James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool, on this important area. However, we are still waiting—I have asked questions on this as well and engaged in discussions—for the Government to move and set up the new body that Owen Paterson promised us some time ago.

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s assurances, but what is involved here is the nature of this surplus land. However, if that accords with what we have been promised, surely this is belt and braces and makes a lot of sense. In particular, I am attracted to Amendment 89, which gives the assurance that that comprises the whole, as well as any part of, the public forest estate. As stated in proposed new subsection (9), that,

“comprises all the land, property, rights and liabilities”.

That is surely in line with what we were promised and what the Government have agreed to. If that forestry body is to be set up, that is fine—this is all in agreement with that. However, in the mean time, I should certainly like to receive some assurances from the Government in line with the amendments before us.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, first, I am sure that no discourtesy was intended to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, over the timing of the letter that was sent. I cannot quite explain the sequence but I know that, in trying to co-ordinate the numerous questions that came to us following Second Reading, we tried to make sure that we had covered everybody’s questions and answered them fully, which may have delayed putting our responses in the post by a day or so. Therefore, I apologise if she was concerned by that.

The public sector land programme is about bringing disused land currently owned by central government back into better economic use, not about selling or building on community assets enjoyed by local communities. It is a continuation of our current programme, where we are on track to dispose of disused land with capacity for 100,000 homes. This clause is not about new policy, but merely the introduction of efficiency into the mechanism.

Surplus land can and already does transfer to the Homes and Communities Agency, but the process is more bureaucratic than is necessary. This clause is simply about increasing the rate of delivery by accelerating internal government procedures. The proposed amendments would actually slow down the process by adding further bureaucracy. For that reason, we would resist this amendment because our goal is to increase efficiency in this process, not to slow it down further.

On the issue of surplus land, it is important that land can transfer to, for example, the HCA while it is still in operational use but a decision has been clearly made that it will no longer be needed beyond a certain point. The HCA would then be able to start remediation works and marketing in parallel with the wind-down of operational activity. This minimises bureaucracy and ensures that we are making best use of our land at all times. Questions have arisen about the word “surplus”. There is not a definition in that sense because property-owning departments and arm’s-length bodies are expected to review their landholdings regularly to identify potential for rationalising their estates. When a landholding is no longer required by government, it is not just surplus to our requirements and there is no hard-and-fast definition of surplus beyond this because it varies so greatly from department to department and use to use. It is for individual departments to decide why they no longer require a piece of land.

I assure your Lordships that it is not possible for the Homes and Communities Agency to transfer land from other public bodies without the consent and co-operation of the transferring department. The transfer is direct but all statutory transfer schemes to the HCA must be signed by a Minister of the Crown or a delegated representative. Therefore, only land that the transferring public body has identified as surplus to its requirements will be transferred. This is standard government business and the noble Baroness will have been very used to this process when her party was in government. There is nothing new or different about the way in which it is being handled.

As I said, the clause is about accelerating internal government processes to transfer surplus land so that it can be disposed of more quickly and effectively for appropriate development. It does not override existing planning policy or community rights. The Government fully appreciate the importance of amenity land to both nature and our communities. Common land is central to our national heritage and we value it for agriculture, recreation, nature conservation, landscape and its historical and archaeological significance.

Public rights of way in the country are the primary means by which people access the countryside and engage in outdoor recreation, which in turn promotes improved health and well-being, as well as sustainable transport. Our amendment will not affect public rights of way. Normal planning procedures will apply to protect open spaces and other amenity land. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that open space should not be built on unless it is surplus to requirements, can be replaced or the benefits outweigh the loss. Planning policies should also protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Where the Homes and Communities Agency owns such land, it seeks to transfer it to the local authority or other community group to continue to manage the land for the community. It is also worth noting that the Homes and Communities Agency often facilitates the creation of new open spaces, allotments and amenity land, which over time become an important asset to the community.

I will talk more directly about the public forest estate in response to the amendments that address this and which are intended to prevent the transfer of land from the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency. We made clear our policy on the public forests at Second Reading and again in the letter that we provided to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. The forest estate is not for sale and we will not transfer the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about future Governments. Future Governments have always been able to make their own decisions, and this Parliament could not prevent their doing so. We can give an absolute assurance about the position that this Government take. Were she in government, she would have to make that decision on a democratic basis for herself.

In my published response to the Parliamentary Question from the noble Baroness relating to Clause 21, I said:

“Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill is completely unconnected to the Government’s stated policy to establish a new public body to hold the Public Forest Estate”.—[Official Report, 30/6/14; col. WA 214.]

The Government have no intention of transferring land from the new body to the Homes and Communities Agency, as the public forest estate is currently in use and not declared surplus. As such, the powers will not be used in relation to this body and will therefore have no effect on it.

I also refer to our forestry and woodland policy statement, published in January 2013, which built on the recommendations made by the independent panel on forestry, chaired by the then Bishop of Liverpool. It confirmed that the PFE will continue to benefit from public ownership. Nothing has changed. We remain committed to this and are continuing to work closely with stakeholders.

I believe that we shall have a discussion on the group that begins with Amendment 91A which will address some of the issues of easements. Just for the purposes of the issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, third-party purchasers will be able to override easements in any land sold by the HCA, the GLA and the MDCs, the mayoral development corporations. That has always been clear from this legislation.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester on his maiden speech. From these Benches, I can say that we are delighted that he will bring a great deal of insight and experience, not least into housing and prisons, into our debates.

There were a considerable number of areas in the gracious Speech which we, too, would welcome. Before I get on to specifics, I will make one or two general points. After the gracious Speech yesterday, I took my guest through to the other place, where the debate had already started. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the very considerable disconnect between the electorate and Parliament. He pointed out:

“About 10% of those entitled to vote at the recent elections voted for UKIP, but as significant is the fact that over 60% did not vote at all. Whatever side we sit on in this House, we will all have heard it on the doorstep … ‘It doesn’t matter who I vote for.’ Of course that is not new, but there is a depth and scale of disenchantment that we ignore at our peril—disenchantment that goes beyond one party and one Government. There is no bigger issue for our country and our democracy, so the test for this legislative programme, the last before the general election, is to show that it responds to the scale of discontent and the need for answers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/14; col. 15.]

I recognise the problem, especially among the younger generation, but surely that is due at least in part to the loss of the concept of the common good. I fail to see how any particular piece of legislation is going to deal with that deeper discontent. There has been such emphasis on the mantra that rights and entitlements trump duties and obligations that we have lost the widely held narrative about how communities and families thrive and flourish and have lost sight of the fact that we find our individuality within families and communities, in mutual relationships. In short, we have created, or allowed to be created, unrealistic expectations about what life can offer and what politics can deliver.

Part of our task, as well as the legislation laid out in the gracious Speech, is to create a debate about how we live together that will involve our rights, of course, but also a much greater emphasis on what each of us needs to contribute. That tension is illustrated in yesterday’s legislative programme laid out before us, such as in the reforms to planning law. As part of the proposed infrastructure Bill, Her Majesty’s Government pledge to,

“Speed up the pace of delivery in key areas of infrastructure developments”—

wait for it—

“whilst still safeguarding the need for communities to be involved”.

Therein lies the tension that we are all trying to grapple with.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to responsible stewardship of public resources through seeking to simplify planning and infrastructure decision-making procedures. Yet the importance of giving proper consideration to those whose lives will be affected by these changes must not be overlooked. Subsidiarity must be a key principle in any reforms—working towards a more participatory democracy, in which all people feel that they have a stake in a shared society and want to engage in the democratic process. It is not an easy task. We have to insist that people do not retreat into an unthinking, uncaring nimbyism that refuses to address the real problems facing us. That is precisely the point that my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made in his speech.

We find that same tension in the area of housing. I, too, welcome the announcement that there will be an increase in housing supply. There is no doubt that, certainly in some parts of the country, there is a huge shortage. But I know that in many areas, not least in some rural areas with which I have had close connection, the building of large quantities of housing is precisely the reason why some people feel that politicians do not listen to them. That is the dilemma that we are grappling with. Those people feel powerless; they think that their vote cannot, and does not, make a difference. How can we find ways to engage with local communities, again insisting that they do not put their heads in the sand but engage with the problems in their localities? Surely this is one of the areas where we need to work out a way to devolve powers from Westminster and enable more local solutions for housing.

One of my particular interests is the rural economy and rural sustainability. I note Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to opening up shale gas sites,

“by clarifying and streamlining the underground access regime”.

I recognise the importance of energy security, which will certainly be threatened in the coming years. However, the discussion about changing the law to allow companies to exploit gas reserves under privately owned land in return for only minimal compensation to landowners, even if the latter object, may not be the best way to achieve this end, especially if it is clear that profits are being taken out of that area and going somewhere else. Is this not another area where we need to think about introducing local agendas whereby communities can see that they will get tangible benefits from opening up the land and from the gas that is taken from it?

I am fully aware of the vital importance of energy security but have reservations about the wisdom of Her Majesty’s Government’s continuing overreliance on fossil fuels. We cannot afford to wait until we run out of fossil fuels before turning to alternative sources of energy. Indeed, we have more than enough fossil fuels remaining to do almost irreparable damage to our world. Rather, we must continue with serious sustained investment in research into and development of renewable energies to go along with the legislation on shale gas.

If the United Kingdom is to meet its commitment set out in the Climate Change Act of an 80% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, growth in the renewable energy sector will be needed way beyond the current 15% share of the national electricity supply. I applaud the Government’s push for an EU energy and climate change package that would mean at least a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. To this end, the Government’s investment in renewable energy sources must match the growth in private sector investment, which has created more than 37,000 green jobs across the UK in the past five years.

I note that there is time in the coming year for draft legislation to be published providing for direct elections to national park authorities in England. However, I should point out that many of us were not only hoping that legislation would be brought forward to respond to the forestry report, which was published in July 2012, but had tabled Written and Oral Questions on the matter. I am sure that some noble Lords are thinking that that topic is not for debate today as it concerns rural affairs, which will be discussed some time next week. However, one of the key points about the forestry report is that it is not just about the environment or leisure but has profound economic opportunities and implications for rural areas. I will not refer to them all but point out where it seems that we need to do some joined-up thinking.

We have been promised that the forestry report will be taken forward but some time has elapsed since its publication. This is one of the report’s recommendations:

“Government, woodland owners and businesses to seize the opportunity provided by woodlands to grow our green economy by strengthening the supply chain, and promoting the use of wood more widely across our society and economy”.

Another recommendation states:

“Local Enterprise Partnerships should work together to bid for funding … to develop woodland enterprise zones in areas where there are opportunities for a revitalised woodland economy to help create jobs in rural areas”.

I will quote one further recommendation:

“Local Authorities should use their Local Plans to introduce a ‘Wood First’ policy for construction projects to increase use of wood in buildings”.

Incidentally, this fits in closely with the Government’s desire, as spelt out in the gracious Speech, which states:

“Legislation will also ensure that new homes are built to a zero carbon standard from 2016, which will reduce carbon emissions and reduce household energy bills”.

The recommendation goes on:

“They should also create a positive planning environment for sustainable wood and forestry businesses, as well as those based on woodland leisure and tourism, that should always enhance natural capital”.

I hope that as we take the legislation forward some of these aspirations and recommendations will be brought before us.

A number of noble Lords have pushed Her Majesty’s Government to take all these recommendations forward, not least for economic reasons. I hope that a way will be found to do that in the coming year.