Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, in response to the right reverend Prelate, I intend to say a few words about the community energy scheme towards the end of my speech. There is a great deal of evidence already of communities investing in a variety of different ways. This is not something wholly new; it is a question of what the Bill intends to build on—and I shall have something to say about that.

I very much welcomed the initial remark of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who said that he was going to support the Bill. It is just as well that he said that, because the rest of his speech made it perfectly clear that he was totally disgusted with the entire Bill—that it did not do what it said it did, that it was a blank sheet and that it did not have any guarantees, or anything. I refer to three of the points that the noble Lord made. He talked about the need for generating capacity and asked where it was. Is he not aware that the European Union is currently considering an application for state aid approval for the Hinkley Point nuclear power station? Until that is forthcoming—and everyone is very confident that it will be—I think that EDF has done a huge amount already, but of course it cannot take its final investment decision. I think that he might have made some reference to that.

The noble Lord talked about the strategic highways companies and asked where their accountability was. Does he not remember that his own Government set up a national strategic planning authority, which was going to be the final arbiter of major strategic planning decisions? It was this Government who had to change that to make the Secretary of State finally accountable, because then the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. Of course, the Secretary of State will be, as the sole shareholder in the companies, wholly accountable to Parliament for what these companies do.

Finally, on the question of shale gas, he said that there was a totally blank sheet. He has obviously not read the consultation paper published last May, which sets out a great many details of exactly what the Government want to do, provided that the consultation shows that there is sufficient approval for it. So I was rather disappointed by the noble Lord’s speech. I hope that I am not disclosing secrets, but when we discussed this matter some years ago he told me that the duty of an Opposition was to oppose. I said, “Well, you can’t oppose the high speed rail—you started it all”. Well, we will wait and see.

On the fracking clauses, I was not alone in believing that we would see those clauses in this Bill. Noble Lords will remember that I mentioned this in my speech on the second day of the Queen’s Speech debate. In a somewhat jocular account of the Government’s legislative programme, the House Magazine said that this was going to be called the “drill, baby, drill” Bill. Well, it will be. I am grateful to my noble friend for the letter that she sent me yesterday which said that the House will have an opportunity to consider those clauses once the consultation was complete and the Government could be sure that they would have sufficient support for them. That is one way of doing it. We want to get ahead with this—that is why the Bill has been introduced—and it is perfectly possible, with the notice that has been given, to have the clauses dealt with as they were.

I turn to what is in the Bill before us. I have already made one point on the question of the highways companies. My instinctive reaction is to support these clauses. I am sure that executive companies which are free from direct daily interference by Ministers and departments can operate more efficiently and effectively than if they remain agencies of the department. I am not an expert on roads and I will listen to the arguments with interest.

I have had some experience of the planning system. While I have sympathy with some of the points that have been made to us by the Local Government Association, I was very surprised to read its statement:

“The planning system is not a barrier to economic growth”.

You could have fooled me. That is certainly not the view we have heard consistently from the business community, which has to try to work with the present system. Of course, it recognises that there have been substantial improvements in recent years but it is looking for more to be done to ease the way.

Indeed, some of the blame for this situation rests with the local authorities themselves. I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. For years local authorities have had the power to draw up local plans but few of them have so far succeeded in doing that. That is one of the barriers which the system faces and I look forward to hearing more about it in the debates to come.

I wish to make three specific points on Part 3. I have given notice to my noble friend on the Front Bench of my question relating to the Homes and Communities Agency and what should happen in London. The powers of that agency in London already belong to the Greater London Authority. It seems to me quite unnecessary that properties in London should be subject to the same provisions in the Bill as apply to the rest of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, sends her apologies for not being able to be with us today and asked me to raise this point. Of course, both the mayor and London First warmly welcome the Government’s determination to reduce the hassle and bureaucracy of the present system for getting dormant publicly owned land transferred to firms for development. This is particularly true of housing. In London there is a great need for more brownfield sites on which to build homes. However, Clause 21 gives this power to the Homes and Communities Agency. That seems to me quite wrong. Why can the mayor not be given an overarching remit to assess, in conjunction with all parts of the public sector in London, what public landholdings are surplus above a certain threshold, and be given the firm and clear responsibility for bringing them forward for development? After all, he is the elected body and it seems to me that he should be able to do that. I have no doubt that amendments will be tabled on that issue.

My second point concerns Clause 22 and easements and other constraints. At present the law provides that the disposer of land has to retain an interest in it. I cannot believe that that is what is intended here. If public land is to be sold for development, why should the seller retain an interest in it? I hope that my noble friend will give me an assurance on that point.

The expansion of the Land Registry to take in local functions relating to land needs to be examined closely. I listened to the arguments made by my noble friend, who came close to convincing me that this is the most appropriate course. I have read quite a lot about it. I was interested that the Government’s response to the consultation acknowledged that,

“many of the responses were not supportive of the proposals”.

However, I have been told that the responses to the proposals were almost wholly negative and included opposition from the Local Government Association, other local authorities, the Law Society, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Information Commissioner, the personal search industry and other stakeholders. I can well understand that the national Land Registry wants to increase its powers and services, but more will need to be done if one is going to convince all those important groups that this is, in fact, the important thing to do. I am certainly open to persuasion but the Government need to do more. I suspect that we shall have some arguments in Committee.

Before I sit down, I should like to follow the right reverend Prelate and say a few words about Part 4, which, with Schedule 5, provides for a community electricity right—a power to require by law developers to offer a stake in onshore renewable electricity projects for sale to local communities. I can certainly understand—indeed, it would be welcome—if local communities can share in the benefits of such development; that can and does reduce opposition. That seems to be an important measure. It would give people, as the right reverend Prelate said, a feeling of involvement and participation, and that is right. The evidence shows that, in fact, a great deal of this is already going on across the country—voluntary measures are being taken in a variety of ways and are not constrained by any of the details that would have to be put into a statutory power. I have re-read the summary of DECC’s report, Community Energy Strategy, which referred to a community energy task force. It was planned to report to the Secretary of State by the summer of this year—here we are, half way through June, and we have not yet had the report—and for there to be a “review” next year. Yet, here we are, legislating for a proposal to establish a statutory power to compel developers to sell a stake in their developments. On this I should like to make two points.

First, virtually all the details under this proposal and schedule will have to be set out in secondary legislation. We are familiar with dealing with that in energy legislation, given that we had it in spades in relation to the Energy Bill, but a huge amount of these proposals will need to be dealt with in regulations. I hope that the Government can today give us an assurance that we will not debate this part of the Bill until we at least have a clearer indication of what is going to be in the regulations, perhaps in draft form or something of that sort.

My second and, I promise, final point is: why do we need to make this compulsory? It is happening already on a wide scale across the country. The Renewable Energy Association has told me that a statutory power, even as a back-stop, is not going to make the task of its members any easier in securing voluntary agreements. I therefore ask my noble friend: why cannot this process simply be allowed to continue? The answer will be that some developers may resist and, therefore, the power will be there as a back-stop. There needs to be a power, as the Government say, just in case it may be needed. Ministers may say—as they do—that they do not want to have to use this power, and that they would much rather that the process continues to be voluntary. I have sufficient experience of this, however, and if departments are given a power to do something, sooner or later they do it. My mantra for that phenomenon goes back many years. If a department can do something then sooner or later it will. If Ministers want to continue with the voluntary arrangements, which the industry certainly wants—it does not want a statutory arrangement—why can we not just leave it at that? This is something that needs to be looked at very carefully in Committee.

Like others I support the Bill, but I have questions that will need to be answered.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester on, if I may say so, a very attractive and persuasive maiden speech. Housing is certainly a very important issue, as a number of speakers on all sides of the debate have made clear today. The right reverend Prelate, as he explained, brings very special knowledge and experience in that regard to our debates, and we will very much welcome that.

He has also talked about his work in prisons. That is an enormously important area for the work of the churches, in order to help the prisoners when they come to be released back into the community and hope for their redemption. He did not mention one of his interests, which is urban regeneration. I spent some years at the Department of the Environment dealing with those problems, and I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate will bring much wisdom to our debates.

I have to tell the House that the right reverend Prelate is very keen on choral singing. As a founder member of the Parliament Choir, I hope he may be persuaded—although I think it somewhat unlikely—to attend the weekly rehearsals and sing in one of the choir’s performances. Perhaps that is asking too much.

It is a particular pleasure to me to be able to welcome the right reverend Prelate’s maiden speech as I have a brother and a son who are in the church and I draw considerable benefit from their advice, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester well knows from what has been said in recent years. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that we all very much look forward to the contributions he will make to our debates in the future.

A number of speakers have already touched on the Infrastructure Bill, and I join my noble friend Lord MacGregor in congratulating my noble friend Lord Deighton on his speech and on what he had to say about that subject. We all await the development of the very exciting proposals which he outlined to the House.

On the subject of energy, there will be not only the infrastructure proposals directly. As the gracious Speech noted, we are going to see measures to implement the electricity reforms which were legislated in the previous Session under the Energy Act 2013. Rather unusually, the gracious Speech referred to what in practice will amount to delegated legislation which is involving much activity by DECC. I had a Question down two days before Prorogation and miraculously it was answered by the Minister before we prorogued. I was very pleased about that. My noble friend Lady Verma outlined the programme for the EMR secondary legislation:

“It is the Government’s intention that these regulations will be laid before the House at the beginning of June 2014 and published concurrently”.—[Official Report, 14/5/14; col. WA508.]

Well, time has slipped, as I learnt yesterday that it is now going to be towards the end of June. I hope that is not a harbinger of other delays in future. There will also be a number of responses to consultations that have been issued over recent months, and it is quite clear that the department has a great deal to do. It means that this House will also have a lot to do in dealing with that delegated legislation.

Among the issues which we will be considering is another matter that is left over and about which the Minister has not had a reply. It is the application to the European Commission for state aid approval for the various measures in the electricity market reforms. The first being considered in detail at the moment is the application for the nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. Those of us who took part in the debates on the Energy Bill were encouraged to write to the Commission and express our support for the application in the hope that the Commission would approve it. I duly wrote and stressed that the Government’s electricity market reforms are vital to allow essential investment in new low-carbon generation of all types to come forward. One does not often get acknowledgements from government departments, but I had a very handsome formal acknowledgement from the Commission and I have no doubt that others who wrote in did as well. I made it clear, and it is certainly true, that EDF and its partner firms need clear and timely approval from the Commission that the arrangements that have been agreed with the Government and are now the subject of legislation are compatible with the state aid rules. The Competition Directorate has completed its consultation, and we have been assured by Commissioner Almunia that he intends to decide the case during his term of office, which ends later this year. There must be no delays to this progress. Our margins are getting very slender, and although the nuclear power station will not be operative until the early 2020s, other investment will need to go forward and we need the approvals to enable that to happen.

In particular, I want to mention the capacity market. The measure in the Act is the framework intended to ensure that we have investment in electricity generating capacity, particularly to help to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow. Regulations, which are awaited with keen interest, have been the subject of fierce negotiation between the industry and DECC. It is now looking as if what comes forward will meet most of the representations that have been made by potential investors. Last month, I had a very helpful letter from the Minister for Energy, my right honourable friend Michael Fallon, in which he spelled out the measures that are likely to be in these regulations. This House will want to look at them very carefully when they are issued to make sure that they achieve what is required.

The capacity market also has to be approved by the EU Commission and is the subject of a separate application under the state aid rules. It has been difficult to find out where the application has got to, but yesterday I had an answer from my noble friend. In advance of her letter, her office very kindly answered my question about the process and timing of that state aid approval and stated:

“We have engaged with the Commission since the start of the policy development process and continue to do so. Discussions with the Commission are at an advanced stage and the Commission is fully aware of our deadlines. At present, we do not foresee any delay and our plans for the first auction in December remain on track ... A delay is not currently anticipated”.

We shall want to watch this very carefully. There have been huge delays in the investment programmes so far, and we cannot afford any more. We are facing very narrow margins over the next two or three years, and this urgent gas-fired investment will be essential to keep the lights on.

The gracious Speech foreshadowed the Infrastructure Bill, which had its First Reading this morning. As my noble friend Lord MacGregor made clear, it includes measures to ease the path for the development of shale gas and oil and geothermal energy. It is interesting that the consultation paper that has been issued covers both almost in parallel because they raise exactly the same issue of deep drilling. Shale gas involves horizontal drilling, which is part of the technology. A lot is known about this because of the consultation paper that has been issued. There has been quite a lot of consultation with stakeholders in recent months. I agree with my noble friend Lord MacGregor that this implements the recommendation that came from his Economic Affairs Committee. Like him, I hope we shall have a response to that very soon so that we can debate in the House that hugely important report. Suffice it to say that the report sets out in detail the very great economic benefit that will accrue to this country from the successful exploitation of this energy source. Of course it must be safe, and of course the environment must be protected, but the evidence that was given to that committee shows that, in fact, that is all entirely possible.

Why do we need this new provision? When I was reading law at university more years ago than I care to remember, I was taught that the common law of England provided that the ownership of land—I shall eschew the Latin, because I know it is out of order—roughly translated, carries ownership of the space up to the heavens and down to Hades. Of course, the minerals below that have long since been nationalised and therefore do not belong to the landowner, unlike in America where they still do. The right to use the space is still that of the owners. Below 300 metres—the figure in the consultation paper—it really can be of absolutely no practical use to the landowner at all. Yet some of the opponents of fracking have threatened to buy strips of land all around so that they can stop the exploitation of shale gas simply by saying, “Sorry, you cannot go through our land”. The Government have made it clear that this is of huge importance to the economy of this country and in helping Europe as a whole to become less dependent on imported sources of gas. I will warmly support the proposal in this Bill.

However, there seems to be a question of timing. The consultation was launched last month and is not due to end until August, in the long recess. Are we really going to debate this Bill and the clauses in it without knowing whether it will in fact be approved by the Government and without having seen the Government’s response to the report? I find this quite difficult. It would be helpful if something could be said about that when the Minister winds up.

It was suggested at one point that this Parliament would have very little to do in its last Session. However, as my noble friend Lord Razzall and others have said, that simply is not true. We are going to be extremely busy, and I warmly welcome the gracious Speech.

Railways: High Speed 2

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

We absolutely agree that we are looking at a new era. It is frankly inspiring to meet the city leaders, businesses and other stakeholders of the great cities of the north and the Midlands, who are coming together to create a sort of common strategy for maximising the benefits of HS2 by building interconnectivity between them. That is absolutely crucial. My noble friend may be hinting at a rolling stock issue in the north. That is an immediate problem that the department has said that it will find a way to resolve no matter what, but it has not yet found an absolute answer.

Parliamentary procedure is a matter for the two Houses. I am sure, though, that with the good will of Members of both Houses, we can encourage the process to move according to the speediest possible timetable. It is important that people who are petitioning are properly heard and listened to; I would not want to cut short the opportunity for that proper interface.

On fares policy, we have said that this will not be a premium service. There will be many ways to link Euston and St Pancras. They have to be looked at. Travelators have been mentioned; there is one stop on the Northern line.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, this side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer]

Many of the cities in the north and the Midlands accept that the link as it was designed did not fit the purpose that they saw for it. It simply was not adequate in the role that it played. We will be looking at many more trains going to many more destinations out of Kings Cross and St Pancras. There has to be a much better way to create a link between HS1 and HS2. That will be a major study. It is a piece of work and it needs to be of the standard that a high-speed intercontinental link deserves.

In the short term, we will need a way to get between Euston and St Pancras. As I say, that will be looked at. The distance, as other people have said, is very limited; I walked between the two in four minutes yesterday. However, it will be important to make sure that that is an efficient and effective link and not a matter of trundling down the street.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, on this question of the HS1/HS2 link, there could be an additional dimension. I have had discussions with Sir Howard Davies who, with his commission, is currently looking at whether a Thames estuary airport could be a realistic addition to the shortlist of options that will be given to the Government after the next election. If, indeed, it becomes a realistic option—which is not impossible at all—then the question of a link from the north will become absolutely vital. People must have a way of travelling down on the HS2 and going on the HS1, with a link to the airport at the Isle of Grain if that is the one which is approved. That would be almost more important than a direct rail link to the continent.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, none of us is attempting to second-guess what the conclusions of the Davies report will be, or the conclusions of the Government of the day that will make the final decision. At that time it will be appropriate to take a look and work out how links can be created if they will be relevant to whatever the major airport will be for the south-east, and to the high-speed line. However, to attempt to do so at this point would delay HS2, which we want to get into the ground by 2017 to deliver the benefits which we all discussed earlier. That is absolutely crucial.

Railways: Line Resilience

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

This is the Tonbridge to Hastings route, which was closed because of a landslip. My understanding is that the reopening is delayed due to ground movement. We very much hope that the line will open again shortly but if there are issues—and I understand from the noble Lord that there are—will he pass them to my department and we will make sure that that they are passed on to the appropriate institutions for proper answer?

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

I draw my noble friend’s attention to the excellent report produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the severe weather over Christmas 2013. This indicates that a great deal can and has been done but one needs to know about it and find out what it all is. Would not a report of that kind, produced by my noble friend’s department, be extremely valuable?

[Baroness Kramer]

I assure your Lordships that there is constant monitoring, and a cross-departmental ministerial recovery group now meets weekly to discuss flooding issues. We take it in turns within my department to attend that meeting and make sure that the process is ongoing. It is also accurate to say that responsibilities have been divided up among a number of us to make sure that monitoring is effective; my responsibility will be as the ministerial representative for flood recovery for Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. Similarly, others have regional responsibilities and I will make sure that we report back as we get information through that process.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 10 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. As this is my first intervention on Report, I note my relevant interests as president of the Local Government Association, chair of Hanover Housing Association and, in the context of the amendment, which concerns good design, vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

In support of the intention behind this amendment, I would like to quote from an excellent speech delivered by the Minister for Planning, Nick Boles, to the Town and Country Planning Association shortly before Christmas. He said:

“People look at the new housing estates that have been bolted on to their towns and villages in recent decades and observe that few of them are beautiful. Indeed, not to put too fine a point on it, many of them are pig ugly”.

He went on:

“Since new housing estates are all too often soulless and formulaic ... existing residents oppose any proposal to build new houses on green field sites, even when the land is of low environment quality”.

He continued:

“In a nutshell, because we don't build beautifully, people don't let us build much. And because we don't built much we can't afford to build beautifully”.

He later said:

“It is now for the planners, architects and developers, large and small, to seize the opportunity we have created and start designing beautiful places, which local people will welcome”.

Poor design not only affects the lives of the people who occupy the new buildings, it also affects those who live in the same neighbourhood. Because so much new development has been, as Nick Boles says, “pig ugly”, the great British public regularly turn out to stymie and oppose the creation of the new homes that are so essential to ending acute housing shortages.

This amendment would strengthen the emphasis on good design, which should always be a hallmark of projects obtaining planning consent. It would, thereby, make it easier to gain the consent of local communities to the building of the new homes this country needs so badly. I strongly commend it.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly to say that I very much welcome the amendments that my noble friend Lady Hanham has tabled to this clause. I have recognised from the beginning that it has been very controversial, not least among local authorities. I, too, declare an interest here as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have made it very clear to the association that I support the main thrust of Clause 1, but equally I recognise its desire to see the criteria dealt with more formally in the legislation. The indications that we have had from the Government in this context have been helpful, as has the Government’s amendment that it will be subject to regulations under the negative procedure, as my noble friend has indicated. These amendments are very welcome and take some of the sting, which local authorities have felt, out of the clause.

Local authorities need not be so worried about the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, whose handling of this legislation I have always admired; he is extremely thorough. He quoted some of the figures from the summary of the consultation response, which I downloaded on my computer yesterday and read. The important thing to recognise is that, in the light of what I have just said about the general attitude of most local authorities towards this clause, it is hardly surprising that the response rate was not much more than 40 to 45%. One has to recognise that of the 227 replies received, 67% were from councils. A further 12% were from local government, professional or environmental organisations, and around 12% were from development interests or business groups. It was a pretty unbalanced response, but that is the nature of consultation; it is the people who feel strongly about such matters who respond. I am sure that those in the development industry look at the clause and say this is a step in the right direction. It is not surprising, given the figures quoted by the noble Lord, that there should have been what is, in a sense, a very heavily weighted response on the part of the local authority world. This does not in any way detract from the support I give to my noble friend for the amendments that she has tabled to this clause. I think that, with these amendments, the clause is a good deal more acceptable and I welcome it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association.

This amendment is designed to assess why only the affordable housing element of a stalled development should be considered. To make a stalled development economically viable, it is important to look at the full range of planning obligations, not just affordable housing. Sometimes it might be sensible to vary affordable housing obligations, but at other times other matters, such as the scale of highway contributions or a developer’s community infrastructure levy liability, might have a greater impact on a development’s viability. This approach would reflect the Government’s desire to ensure that planning applications are not acting as a barrier to new development and would give much greater flexibility to planning authorities in their negotiations with developers.

I have read carefully the draft viability guidance on Section 106 affordable housing requirements. It says that the application and appeal process will assess the viability of affordable housing requirements only. It will not reopen any other planning policy considerations or review the merits of the permitted scheme. I believe it is very clear that only affordable housing requirements could be subject to negotiation.

However, it also says at a later point in the draft that the timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered. Will the Minister define an off-site contribution? I take it to be something broader than simply the affordable housing requirement and might actually include the community infrastructure levy. I would like clarification of that because later in the draft viability guidance it says that the relevant sections, Sections 106BA and 106BB, do not provide an opportunity to reopen policy considerations or requirements for planning obligations other than for affordable housing. Again, the matter is clear. Therefore I am left wondering what an off-site contribution actually is, as presumably the affordable housing is on site.

It seems to me to be common sense that local planning authorities should be given the capability to consider other planning obligations as part of a Section 106 agreement beyond simply the affordable housing component. It could be that if there were a successful negotiation on those other matters, it would enable more affordable housing to be built as a consequence. For the reassurance of the Minister, I had not planned to move this to a vote, but I believe that the issue ought to be explored so that we have clarification of what is actually intended and why the Government feel that they cannot permit other planning obligations to be part of the consideration of the renegotiation of a Section 106 agreement. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has raised an interesting issue, which has been raised at earlier stages, as to why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated. He has also added to his amendment the question of the community infrastructure levy. Bearing in the mind the main purpose of the CIL, I would question whether that would be an appropriate reduction to seek. The CIL is after all intended to provide local authorities with the resources to pay for some of the infrastructure that would be necessary to support the housing requirements. It is true that affordable housing does not attract the CIL, but the rest of the housing development would. If one is going to have a community infrastructure levy, I would be very reluctant to see that negotiated down on the grounds of the developer saying that their scheme is not viable.

We have not had a full explanation of why only affordable housing is able to be renegotiated, because there may well be other obligations. I, too, read the sentence in the guidance about the other “off-site” obligations and I was not quite sure what that meant. When I first read it, I thought that it meant off-site affordable housing, but affordable housing is often not immediately on the same site as the rest of the development; it can be on a different site, so I do not think that that is what it means. I would welcome an explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to what is involved. Hitherto, I have wholly supported the idea of renegotiation. Indeed, it has been the main burden of complaint of developers that they have agreed in different circumstances to affordable housing obligations and that it is that which makes their development unviable. That is why there has been, as was referred to earlier, a lot of negotiation going on with local authorities anyway. However, I am not aware of any local authorities which have negotiated reductions in other planning requirements that may have been necessary.

The draft affordable housing requirements guidance states:

“Timing and level of off-site contributions may also be considered”.

What does that refer to? I think that I took the guidance off my computer this morning, so it has come just in time. I would be very much against seeking to renegotiate downwards the community infrastructure levy.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we received the draft viability guidance late last night, which was not particularly helpful for discussions that we were going to have this evening. I just put it on record that if, when we have had chance to study the guidance, we found particular issues relating to the Bill, we would reserve the right to pick them up at Third Reading. That should not be precluded given the lateness of the availability of that quite important information.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an important question as to why affordable housing should take all the strain to deal with viability. The amendment does not seem necessarily to preclude an appeal to the Secretary of State and what the Secretary of State would do in those circumstances, but that is a drafting point perhaps for another occasion.

Perhaps the Minister might cover in her response the relationship between the Bill and the updated regulations, which I think come into effect tomorrow and deal generally with the right to renegotiate Section 106 obligations, affordable housing and the rest. That would now be done within a three-year period, which I think is the thrust of those regulations. It would be helpful if that could be put in context.

I have been concerned throughout consideration of this Bill that affordable housing is asked to take the strain if a site is not viable. There are broader considerations which should come into play.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—for taking the time to see me with their officials last Thursday to talk about the amendments I have tabled to Clause 23 in the next group and also about my objections to the inclusion of Clause 22 in the Bill.

Your Lordships may recall that I spoke about special parliamentary procedure—SPP—at Second Reading. That was based on my experience of serving on the Rookery South Joint Committee. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used then, other than to repeat the point that SPP has been triggered very rarely—only three times since 1990. While the eventual majority decisions of the Rookery South Joint Committee were not ones I supported—both the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I felt that the promoters of the resource recovery facility had a case to answer in terms of demonstrating the need for such a large project—I believe that the public interest was served in our deliberating in a Joint Committee. Had this Bill been an Act last year, with Clauses 22 and 23 contained within it, the Rookery South Joint Committee would not have taken place.

Since Second Reading, I have been sent two pieces of briefing on why Clause 22 should be removed from the Bill. The first relates to a battle against road-builders in High Wycombe in 1965. The redoubtable Kate Ashbrook, general-secretary of the Open Spaces Society, has described what happened on her blog, from which I shall quote some extracts:

“Wycombe Rye is a stretch of public open space on the east side of High Wycombe, Bucks, extending alongside the River Wye … The rye is a treasured spot, 68 acres of land vested in Wycombe District Council and its predecessor body … since 1927 … Looking at it now you might think it had always been safe. Not so. In 1962 part of the land was threatened with a compulsory purchase order, to enable the inner-relief road to be built across it”.

That road had been approved following a public inquiry. She goes on:

“There was a further inquiry into the appropriation of 2.4 acres of open space, but on the inspector’s recommendation, the minister”—

of the day—

“confirmed the appropriation order, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, on 5 February 1965. Fortunately no land was offered in exchange, so the order was subject to special parliamentary procedure … That meant that objectors could petition parliament and present their case to a joint committee of both houses ... Magnificently, the committee ruled that the orders be annulled. The rye has remained intact to this day, saved by legislation which gives parliament the final say on the theft of open space where no suitable alternative is provided”.

However, that protection will disappear if Clause 22 remains in the Bill because,

“instead of such cases being referred to a parliamentary committee, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government himself can decide the fate of open space. In future, when compulsory purchase of open space is proposed for development which the government thinks should go ahead quickly, and there is no suitable exchange land or that land is considered to be too expensive, the minister can cast aside SPP and rule that the development proceeds without regard to the open space”.

Powerful arguments in favour of retaining SPP have also come from the Inland Waterways Association, which makes the point that the Canal & River Trust, the body set up following the passage of the Public Bodies Act, holds the waterways it cares for in trust on behalf of the nation in perpetuity. If the CRT is threatened by a compulsory purchase proposal, it has at present the option to go down the SPP route. This, says the Inland Waterways Association, makes the authority threatening compulsory purchase treat the CRT with greater respect and encourages constructive discussion. It claims that if the Bill is passed, the CRT will lose the right to request an SPP. Will the Minister confirm whether it is right in that assertion? If it is, how does he explain the anomaly whereby the National Trust retains the right to call for an SPP on its own land but the Canal & River Trust is denied that? It appears to be the case that the Government are, by their amendment to Clause 22, strengthening the position of the National Trust but at the same time doing nothing to give protection to other bodies with heritage responsibilities. As the Inland Waterways Association puts it, how can the Minister justify the situation where the River Wey Navigation, which is owned by the National Trust and dates back to the 17th century is protected, but the River Lee Navigation, which is five centuries older, is not?

Finally, if Clauses 22 and 23 stay in the Bill, a decision, which was vested in Parliament, will now be taken by the Executive. I caution the Minister to take care in what he wishes for. One advantage from the Government’s point of view about SPP is that it cannot be subject to judicial review and does not apply to decisions taken by the Secretary of State, which can be challenged by JR and will take far longer to resolve than SPP. Certainly, if the Government are threatening open space, they should anticipate the possibility of numerous judicial reviews. I suggest that the Government should now drop Clause 22, take it back for further consideration and perhaps come forward with fresh suggestions on Report.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, Amendments 76 and 77 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and myself, and this perhaps is the moment when I should make my contribution to the debate. I read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, at Second Reading and his reference to Rookery South. I approach this issue from a rather different angle. If one looks at the history of that energy-from-waste project in Bedfordshire, the SPP—a post-consent process; planning consent had already been given—simply allows the objectors a further opportunity to object. A lot of people feel strongly about energy-from-waste projects.

The noble Lord says that that gives rise to parliamentary accountability. I have to say that until I had studied the briefs on these two clauses, I had been entirely unaware as a Member of Parliament of the activities of the noble Lord and some of his colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was mentioned. I know that my noble friend Lord Brabazon has been involved in similar SPP processes and has regarded them as very long and drawn out.

This Bill is about encouraging growth and investment in the infrastructure. It really cannot make sense to continue with these, as it were, statutory procedures for delaying decisions and action on applications for which consent has already been given after the normal processes. I have to confess to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that I have not studied closely the condition of the waterways, as he obviously has, or, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the ports.

These two amendments are concerned about, as am I, the application of the special parliamentary procedure for what is called common land,

“open space, fuel or field garden allotment”.

The Planning Act currently provides that a development consent order which authorises compulsory purchase of open space land or a right over such land will be subject to the SPP unless the Secretary of State has issued a certificate confirming that certain prescribed circumstances will apply. I have already said that this is a post-consent approval stage that certainly has the potential to result in—and in some of the cases, not least that of Rookery South to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has referred, has actually resulted in—very considerable delays for a project that had already achieved planning consent. The procedure can be very costly for the applicants—and, I dare say, for some of the objectors—and hold back the provision of infrastructure projects that support economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I apologise, but my noble friend may have been asleep at the point when I spoke quite heavily to the amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indeed spoke to the amendments, and his name is on them, so I am justified in speaking to them. I am grateful to the noble Lord.

At the moment, open space is generally defined as any land used for the purposes of public recreation. When it is threatened with compulsory purchase, the developer must provide suitable exchange land. If no land is provided, or if it is thought to be inadequate, then the special parliamentary procedure comes in. It is true that open space is often already designated by local authorities. It includes all the land designated in local plans as open space. However, it surely includes a great deal more than that.

At the moment the protection of Parliament is afforded to all land used for public recreation, formal or informal. For example, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would remove this protection from the many thousands of acres of countryside, apart from the commons, which were mapped for access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and which are now clearly designated as access land and, therefore, open space. They would also remove this protection from many hundreds of sites which people enjoy by custom for informal recreation.

Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, produce a new definition of open space, which is that it has to be designated by local authorities in addition to, and over and above, land designated in local plans. I do not know what this means. It would produce considerable new duties on local authorities to make sure that they looked again at all their open space and, inevitably, it would exclude quite a large amount of open space.

There is a suggestion that the Government now only want to protect the most precious spaces and very specially protected land, which the noble Lord referred to in his speech. However, that would be a very substantial restriction on existing definitions of open space. I am sure that, overall, that is not the Government’s wish, but if it were to be their wish, they should come forward and apply that to everything, not just to this particular provision.

The provisions have existed in their present form since the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 and were intended to protect land which is valued by people for recreation. I suggest that to introduce some kind of arbitrary distinction, which results from a new kind of designation by local authorities, is not the way forward. It would be vague and confusing, and to put out a new definition of open space just for this purpose would not be desirable at all. It would be a great confusion and would lead also to lots of judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the normal processes, but the normal processes in relation to open space are different from the normal planning processes. They are part of that but they are different.

Clause 22 already restricts the application of special parliamentary procedure to open space. It is something that I would rather did not happen. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. However, to restrict it even further, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants, would be a very substantial step backwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to set out in the Bill the types of development and development sites which can and cannot be considered nationally significant under Clause 24. A number of specific amendments have been moved, and I will attempt to address the issues in each.

As noble Lords are aware, the purpose of Clause 24 is to extend the existing powers within the Planning Act to direct sub-threshold forms of energy, waste, transport, water and waste-water schemes into the Planning Act regime, to new forms of business and commercial development. Our intention is not to bring new development into the regime automatically but to provide an alternative planning route where proposed development is of national significance. We have recently consulted on the types of business and commercial developments, and we are now in the process of considering the responses to that consultation.

Amendments 77ZJ and 77AB would rule out proposed schemes using the regime if they were on sites of special environmental or historic importance or if they involved minerals extraction, or quarrying. These amendments would apply equally to the existing types of infrastructure, such as energy, transport and water, as well as to new forms of business and commercial schemes.

An example of the effect of Amendment 77ZJ is that a sub-threshold energy scheme of national significance that might otherwise be considered via the Planning Act route could not be the subject of a direction if part of the site had an environmental designation. We do not consider this to be a sensible approach. If a scheme is of national significance and is directed into the regime, the Secretary of State will have to consider all the issues that are important and relevant, including any impacts on the historic or natural environment, before reaching his decision. To exclude large tracts of land without consideration of the planning merits or otherwise of the proposed development could discourage developers bringing forward much needed infrastructure or economic developments.

I will explain our thinking on minerals a little bit more. As we recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework, minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and quality of life. Without minerals, our building industry would grind to a halt. It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. We therefore consider that some minerals schemes could be capable of being of national significance, but again we wish to consider the consultation responses before we reach final conclusions about the forms of development.

Amendments 78ZA, 77AA, 77AC and 77BA seek to place the types of commercial and business development in the Bill. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, broadly agrees with the types of development on which the Government consulted recently in connection with the proposals to extend the infrastructure planning regime to business and commercial projects. Nevertheless, we consider that this amendment is premature. We believe that a broad range of types of development of national significance could benefit from using the infrastructure planning regime and that further public and parliamentary scrutiny on how this new power should be used is appropriate. That is why we are now considering the responses to this consultation and why the accompanying regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 78, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin, also seeks to remove the exclusion in the Bill on dwellings from being prescribed in regulations. I listened carefully to the remarks made on this point by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Government have a clear position that planning for housing should remain a core responsibility of local councils. As the Government set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, local councils should be planning to deliver a wide choice of high-quality homes and wider opportunities for home ownership and creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

Many of the responses to the consultation exercise that we carried out recently supported the exclusion of housing from the infrastructure planning regime. Again, we are considering these responses, but we believe that housing should be and remain a core responsibility of local authorities.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I did not intervene in the debate, because the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made the point. When will the Government publish the full response to the consultation? It has been represented to me that there were quite a lot of objections to the exclusion of housing. Of course one agrees that housing cannot be a main purpose of an application that goes directly to the Planning Inspectorate, but there are a lot of mixed developments now that usefully and importantly will include a housing aspect. It ought to be possible for an applicant to use the new procedure to have his application referred directly to the inspectorate.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I think that I made clear in my remarks that we are considering the results of the consultation that has just taken place. At present, the intention is to continue to have housing dealt with by local authorities. We are analysing the responses at the moment. While we already have a summary of the issues, we will publish a full response in due course. The summary of the issues may be helpful to us for the next stage.

I hope that noble Lords will agree the Government have set out a sensible approach that will enable new forms of nationally significant development to benefit from the Planning Act regime, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment, and that other noble Lords do not press the amendments in their names, mainly probing as I understand them to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his interesting excursion into these matters. The Government’s decision—which has of course now been accepted by Parliament—is that the NSIPs should not go to an IPA which is then able to make the decisions itself, because the IPA is not accountable to anybody. To have the IPA—or, as it is now, the inspectorate—simply making recommendations and the Secretary of State then making the decisions seems to me constitutionally very much better. I am not going to take this further.

When we were talking earlier about national policy statements, I stressed to my noble friend Lord Ahmad that I think the Government will quite soon have to think of a national policy statement for shale oil—for unconventional oil—because questions are now being raised in the House. They are being raised widely in the relevant community outside.

I do not know quite which world the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, lives in. I have been the recipient of a number of complaints about the difficulty firms have in making developments which seem to me to be absolutely essential, and indeed are so under the national policy. There was an incident in which I sought help for an electricity substation, for which it was absolutely necessary to bring ashore the product—the electricity— from what was intended to be a large offshore wind farm. I am not sure whether even that has yet been granted. I was the recipient of at least two complaints about the provision of underground gas storage. Again, people have an absurd idea of what these things may be. Those are the kind of big decisions, big applications, which have been seriously held up. I think therefore that it is absolutely right for an applicant to say that the application should be heard under the NSIP procedure.

There is also the different problem raised by Amendment 78B. This has been put to me by the National Grid, which obviously has very considerable experience of dealing with applications which may arouse a good deal of opposition. The case is a very simple one; it is in fact seeking consistency. Under the new proposals for commercial development, only the applicant is entitled to ask the Secretary of State to make a referral to the inspectorate, whereas for all previous applications the application can be made by anyone, in addition, of course, to the promoter. One must ask whether it is right that, concerning the new category of business and commercial project, only the applicant is able to refer. Why does this not apply to all the other bodies? The argument for consistency seems really quite overwhelming.

My noble friend Lord Attlee will remember that I raised exactly the same point when we were discussing the Localism Bill 18 months ago. He stated that,

“it may be that third parties with expertise in particular areas, such as environmental requirements, possess information which they think may elevate a proposed development from one of sub-national significance to one of national significance. It would not be right to prevent such bodies drawing this information to the attention of the Secretary of State”. – [Official Report, 17/10/11; col. 107.]

Well, that is an argument. However, he of course pointed out that that amendment would enable someone to draw key information to the Secretary of State’s attention if it has not already come to light. The Secretary of State can then of course direct that the matter goes direct to the inspectorate under the NSIP procedure. On that occasion I was trying to break new ground, but that is not the case under this Bill. As I said a few moments ago, under this Bill only the promoter can take that step in relation to business and commercial projects, and I am puzzled as to why. My amendment therefore simply seeks to bring all the existing applications into line with the new one for business and commercial projects. I hope that my noble friend will view this as a pretty reasonable request.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s contention that this clause do not stand part of the Bill. I will not repeat the questions raised by noble Lords, which I feel deserve an answer from my noble friend the Minister. I am sure that we will get answers, because she has shown herself throughout this process to be very open and willing to engage with us.

The one issue I would like to expand on a little further is that of fracking, and bringing that into the fast track process. The Minister rightly said that this is a developing area, and it is therefore important that this House has time to consider all the possible implications. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others, I think it is appropriate for the Government to introduce a national planning policy statement for this. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, this is an important new area with major implications, particularly in the north-west. Given the scale of fracking and the Government’s commitment to press ahead with it, it would seem illogical not to give the Planning Inspectorate further clarity as it takes this issue forward.

The Minister said that there will be between 10 and 20 cases a year, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She cited evidence given by Friends of the Earth; I choose instead to cite evidence given to the House of Lords inquiry into EU energy policy last month, when Professor Jonathan Stern of the Oxford Institute gave his assessment of the implications of fracking in the United Kingdom. In the committee’s evidence session, Professor Stern stated:

“The US drills 45,000 wells every year of which 80% are fracked... people in Europe just do not understand the scale on which the drilling has taken place. In the future, it may be possible to reduce the scale of that drilling but I think what you can say is, if in any specific country you have drilled 100 wells, you may know something about the resource base. If you are going to produce shale gas on any scale, you probably need to be drilling somewhere between 300 and 500 wells a year, every year”.

I quote those figures because I think it is beholden upon my noble friend to answer—and I am sure she will do her best to do so—why the Government seem to think there will only be 10 to 20 cases emerging through this fast-tracking process if fracking is brought forward. There is a disparity which needs urgent clarification. Yes, it is a developing area, but if the Government are going to proceed with fracking, and take it forward as part of the energy mix in the short to medium term, then not only is there a case for a national policy statement, but there needs to be far greater clarity about the implications—particularly the resource implications—that would accrue for the Planning Inspectorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

We have a number of consultations coming through to fruition, so I am not able to stand here now and say that the Government’s response will be available by Report. I hope that we will have an indication of what more we can discuss on this. If the response can be made available then I will certainly see that it is but I am not in a position to say that it will be. I note what the noble Baroness said.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I listened with great care to what my noble friend said on the question of who can make an application to the Secretary of State for an NSIP treatment. I will read very carefully what she said but, having listened, I am still puzzled as to why there is a difference between the existing applications and the new ones for business and commercial. Perhaps I might leave that there. I will read very carefully what she said and decide how we should proceed after that.

[Lord Adonis]

On the question of proposed types of development and thresholds, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pressed the Minister, I took the Minister to have made a significant statement earlier when she said that if there was to be a notable departure from the proposals set out in annexe A of the consultation document she thought it likely the Government would come forward and tell the House that before we passed this legislation into law. I am sure we will study carefully in Hansard tomorrow what the noble Baroness said but that was quite a significant statement. We look forward to the noble Baroness coming forward and telling noble Lords of the Government’s intentions if they intend to depart from the proposed types of developments and thresholds set out in annexe A.

Unless I missed it, I do not think that the noble Baroness replied to my amendment at all, which would require the Secretary of State to publish the reasons why a planning decision is to be decided centrally, including why the application is regarded as nationally significant. I thought that was a very reasonable and extremely constructive amendment and that she might even be able to accept it.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, that does not meet the point at all. The evidence which the national parks have given to noble Lords shows that 97% of several hundred applications—I think 292 have been made under the pre-notification procedure—have been agreed by the national parks authorities. I am sorry to keep putting this to the noble Baroness but it is a fairly fundamental issue. There has been a large number of applications, and we obviously want a great deal more so that we have a great deal more rollout of superfast broadband in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, almost all those that have been brought forward have been agreed. Does the noble Baroness have any evidence at all that there are cases which the Committee should take into consideration where the planning authorities themselves have been slowing down a rollout of broadband that would otherwise have taken place?

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Before my noble friend responds to that, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has taken account of the paragraph in the impact assessment which says:

“We have received reports where multiple sites have had to be surveyed and prior approval applications submitted, only for agreement still not to be reached, and delays in some cases of up to two years. Examples have been provided by BT based on their experience of rolling out broadband over the last two years with delays ranging from 12-27 months”.

It seems to me that that is really quite a serious bar on broadband in these areas

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was present for my opening speech, but I pointed out that national parks authorities are not aware that any of those cases raised by BT apply to national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Government say airily that they have received reports but will not actually publish anything. The noble Lord, like me, has been a Secretary of State in the past. It is one thing to declare airily that you have received reports but it is another thing actually to give chapter and verse. No chapter and verse whatever has been given in this debate that there is a real issue that would justify a very major change in the law of the kind that the Government are proposing.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

60: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Extension of economic development powers to councils
In the Localism Act 2011, after section 16 insert—
“16A Duty to report on proposals for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils
(1) Within one year of second round of bespoke “city deals” being completed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the government proposals, policies and timescales for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils.
(2) The report must, in particular, fully set out—
(a) the case for making the “core package” of devolved powers achieved in the second round of bespoke “city deals” available to all councils to help boost growth; and(b) the time-scales over which those proposals and policies are expected to take effect.(3) Where the Secretary of State has determined it not appropriate to extend devolutionary powers to all local councils, the report must, in particular, fully set out—
(a) why this has been determined as not appropriate;(b) include a resolution that sets out how the government intends to review this determination; and(c) the review of this determination must be laid before Parliament not later than one year following the laying of the original report.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Tope, in whose name the amendment has been tabled, I wish to move Amendment 60. The amendment is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

The amendment returns us, as I am sure the Minister recognises, to localism. She will remember that when we were debating the Localism Bill, as it then was, two years ago, we made considerable progress in persuading the Government to go for a greater degree of localism than had originally been in that Bill. At the same time, I did not seek to conceal my disappointment that it had not gone further. There is huge scope for increasing the decentralisation of power and decision-making from central government to local areas and local people.

Since then, there have been a number of developments. I start with the remarkable report prepared by my noble friend Lord Heseltine, No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth. I told my noble friend that I did not agree with everything in that report, but I applauded the emphasis which he laid—indeed, in an entire chapter—on the need for achieving greater localism.

That chapter is Chapter 2, Building on our Strengths. I cannot begin to quote the whole of that chapter, and the Committee, I think, would become singularly impatient if I did, but I want to quote just two sentences. Paragraph 2.14 states:

“For the UK to face up to the challenge of increasing international competition, we must reverse the long trend to centralism. Every place is unique. Local leaders are best placed to understand the opportunities and obstacles to growth in their own communities”.

That is highly relevant to the Bill.

In paragraph 2.22, after reciting a considerable number of measures that the Government have taken—they cover two pages of the report—my noble friend goes on to say:

“We need to go further and faster to achieve an essential rebalancing of central and local power and resources, extending not just to cities, but to local areas right across England”.

I thoroughly endorse that. As my noble friend will recognise, that is what the amendment is all about.

Another development is that in December 2011, the Government announced their intention,

“to develop tailored deals with our core cities, devolving powers and supporting projects which will boost growth and jobs for the long term”.

That was widely applauded. It has been followed up vigorously by the relatively small number of cities to which it extends. The question is: why should it stop with the cities? The new city deals recognise that local leaders, rather than Whitehall departments, are best placed to understand the economic opportunities and challenges that they face and that they have a key role to play in shaping incentives and conditions for private sector success.

There is also a case for mainstreaming the devolved powers achieved in the early city deals as part of a general mainstreaming programme making those powers available to all councils to help them to boost growth. The wave 2 cities will receive a core package of devolved powers as part of their deal. I submit that the case for extending that more widely is becoming very strong.

I am told by the Local Government Association, which of course has followed that up with much enthusiasm, and has conducted seminars and conferences to seek the views of its members on it, including a seminar with the Centre for Cities on 19 December last year, that it is now receiving many expressions of interest from other cities, towns—and, indeed, not only single local authorities but groups of local authorities—which would like encouragement to develop similar negotiated deals with central Government to give them the additional powers and resources necessary for them to develop the economy in their area.

Another aspect is that when we were passing the Localism Act, the local enterprise partnerships were still very rudimentary. They had only recently been announced; they did not at that stage cover the whole country; some of them were taking longer than others to get off the ground; and they did not have significant financial resources behind them. Those are partnerships led by employers. I have always been firmly of the view that the most effective encouragement to employment, growth, and all the rest of it comes from employers rather than from central government. The Government can facilitate, encourage and provide a framework but, in the end, it is local authorities, individuals and businesses which can make it happen on the ground.

We have not only the strong recommendations of the report of my noble friend Lord Heseltine; we now have the growing experience of the city deals, which are proving very satisfactory and popular and are producing results, and the now well established local enterprise partnerships set up over the greater part of the country, which are beginning to work well. The Government have recognised that by allocating more finance to them. I very much welcome that.

The missing link is that local authorities, apart from the big cities, do not have the same power to negotiate deals with central government that would allow them to have the same opportunities and encouragement to develop their economies and provide jobs and growth in their areas. They know their areas best. We should be prepared to do that; I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench agree.

We are not seeking by the amendment an immediate commitment for that to happen. Clearly, there needs to be study and further consideration of how, where and when that would best be done. Our amendment would add a new clause to the Localism Act entitled:

“Duty to report on proposals for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.

The first subsection states:

“Within one year of second round of bespoke ‘city deals’ being completed”—

that is very wise, because it gives a chance to assess the experience of city deals without charging ahead too rapidly—

“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the government proposals, policies and timescales for the extension of devolved economic development powers to all local councils”.

Then the amendment suggests what should be in the report. Subsection (3) states:

“Where the Secretary of State has determined it not appropriate to extend devolutionary powers to all local councils … The report must, in particular, fully set out—

(a) why this has been determined as not appropriate;

(b) include a resolution that sets out how the government intends to review this determination”.

Then the review of the determination must be laid before Parliament within a year.

That is asking the Government to take this forward positively as a further means of spreading the localism—which is the Government’s policy and has been declared to be and has rightly been at the centre of their attitude to local government—but gives them time to ensure that it would really work if extended across the country.

The amendment is reasonable. It builds on what is there already. It reflects the important chapter in my noble friend’s report, No Stone Unturned, and it fits well with the general thrust of the Government’s policy of increasing localism. I hope that my noble friends will feel able to smile on the amendment. I do not say for one moment that the wording is right, but I hope for some encouragement. Then we can return either with a government amendment or something that takes account of what Ministers have said. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which we enthusiastically support. We should thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for moving it so comprehensively in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Too often, we hear the mantra of devolving power but see the reverse: power and decision-making moving to the centre, from schools policy to planning.

We should acknowledge the progress being made on devolving powers to some areas, building on the achievements of multi-area agreements. Following the deal on the first eight cities, the Government are encouraging bids from a further 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said.

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what was involved for some in the first tranche. Nottingham City Council would be given powers to create a venture capital fund to invest in high-tech business, start-ups and growth businesses. I think that for Newcastle, Sheffield and Nottingham the deal has been backed by tax increment finance schemes. A control over part of central government’s skills budgets will be given to Sheffield, while Bristol, Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham will join Manchester in creating apprenticeship hubs. That is just a flavour of what has been achieved from those first few city deals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, on behalf of the city of Newcastle, I disavow any territorial ambitions in relation to Cumbria, even though we are connected by the Roman wall, part of which runs through and, indeed, is visible in the ward I represent.

I am the fifth consecutive former council leader to address the Committee this afternoon. It was in that capacity that I first made the acquaintance of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, some 30 years ago when he chaired the inner city partnership in Newcastle. At that time, a number of authorities had such a partnership chaired by a senior Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was chairman of the Newcastle inner city partnership. I recall rather amusing him by referring to the city action teams that were created in those days as “feral cats”. He might remember the phrase. We worked well together, as did other inner city partnerships. It was a process initiated by Peter Shore in the Callaghan Government of the late 1970s.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I ought to put on record—I do not think that the noble Lord will disagree—that there were some areas that found that extremely difficult. I need only mention Liverpool.

[Lord Beecham]

Liverpool was in many minds at that time. The noble Lord and I perhaps shared a view about Liverpool, but we were not alone in that.

The principle of looking across government departments and local authority functions embodied in a small way in those arrangements was returned to under the previous Government with the concept of Total Place. As I think I have said before in debates in your Lordships’ House, that has, I believe, been rebranded as community budgets, but it is consistently compatible with the thrust of the Government’s policy on city deals and the thrust of the amendments, which, of course, I support. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was quite right to refer to the powers and resources that are required to invigorate local economies. That involves, by definition, a wide range of public organisations, including government departments. One thinks of BIS, the Department for Transport, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the DCLG, Defra and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. All potentially have a role to play with not only their policies but sometimes with their resources in individual areas. I hope that the Government can look at reinforcing the concept of the city deal by connecting it to the concept of community budgeting or Total Place, so that one looks at the sum of government-directed public expenditure in an area and sees how it can fit into and be applied to the issues of economic growth and regeneration.

Of course, the city deals that have been announced are welcome. Newcastle has benefited; I think that the figure is roughly £80 million. Liverpool got a little more at £110 million. That is not necessarily cash coming from the Government. It is the value of some of the freedoms that have been given, including, for example, tax-increment financing. Tax-increment financing is the permission effectively to borrow against the anticipated business rate income, which will generated by development. It has been deployed effectively for some years in the United States. There is reason to hope that it will help us here.

It is not, then, a question of the Government passing resources to the local authority, but of borrowing. Useful and impressive though those schemes and those amounts of money to invest will be, however derived, they have to be contrasted with the loss of financial resources to the very same authorities as a result of the local government finance settlement, exceeding on an annual basis in the cases of both Liverpool and Newcastle—and perhaps the others, I cannot say for certain—the value of the city deal and its financial implications. That is ultimately money taken out of the local economy, which is likely to have a deleterious effect on that local economy, employment and business. It is a curious inconsistency, which the Government have to address. They have to align their local government finance policies with the ambitions, which we share in local government, across the parties, of the city deal programme.

Finally, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Smith on the need for local authorities to co-operate and not to be seen to be competing with one another, at least in the same sort of area. There will no doubt be competition —healthy, I hope—between different parts of the country, offering different attractions for investment from within this country or overseas; that is a healthy process. However, it would be a great mistake if, within regions—or, to use the current governmental phrase, sub-national areas—there were to be cut-throat competition between more-or-less neighbouring authorities.

It was striking in those dark days of the 1980s—which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, did his best to brighten in Newcastle—that the region of the north-east came together in two ways. First, it came together—I have to say, at my suggestion—to create a Northern Regional Councils Association, which included Cumbria in those days, as it rather looked to the east than to the south. It also came together to facilitate the hugely important Nissan development in Sunderland. There was no competition between authorities as to who should get that. We came together and worked with business in the region and the Government of the day on behalf of the region as a whole. It is effectively a functional economic area, to use the jargon. That spirit of co-operation certainly needs to be driven, and I hope that the Government will incentivise it as these proposals go forward. I hope that—with the slightly cautionary words of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about not conferring significant powers and functions on unviably small groups of authorities on their own terms, with which I agree—

Have I misunderstood the noble Lord?

--- Later in debate ---

Different elements of the city deals package will continually be assessed and, as appropriate, we will look to extend them to local authorities as and when appropriate—indeed, to all local authorities when we believe that to be relevant. The Government will also consider reporting back on any measures that we are trialling in a city deal, when appropriate. I hear what has been said about the specific report but it is important that we respond fully to the Heseltine report and then subsequently report back on the trialling on which we are taking part in the first and second wave. On behalf of the Government, I welcome the widespread support for city deals. Based on those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will see it as appropriate to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I think that my noble friend did indeed smile. He has given us a very fair and encouraging report, and I entirely take the point with which he finished, that there will be a full response to the report of my noble friend Lord Heseltine. There was one point on which I disagreed with my noble friend Lord Heseltine, when he suggested that local authority structures should be reviewed and they should become single-tier authorities. I told him that I did not agree with that, and the Government have made it perfectly clear that they do not agree.

I warmly support what has been said about the need for co-operation. When we debated the Localism Bill—my noble friend Lady Hanham will remember this—there was a good deal of scepticism about the Government’s wish that local authorities should co-operate. The fact of the matter is that two years later one can point to any number of examples where local authorities are co-operating admirably. That is a far better way than to embark on a major restructuring, which would be unrealistic.

I shall not comment in detail on everybody who has spoken. I am extremely grateful for the amount of support that we have received. I mention two points. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the achievement of the Nissan investment. That was very much a collaborative exercise; I was the Secretary of State for Industry who in the end persuaded Nissan to come here. We were negotiating as well with Honda, which eventually went to Swindon. I composed what my Japanese friends were kind enough to say was a sort of haiku: “We get fonder and fonder of Honda, but the kissing with Nissan is missing”. In the end, the kissing was everywhere; we got them both.

That was a very good example of local authorities co-operating. My noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned the West Cumbria authorities: Allerdale, Copeland and West Cumbria. I had been led to believe—with considerable optimism, I hope—that the decision will be announced that the idea of a nuclear repository within that territory, on terms that will need to be finally agreed, is welcomed. We had a three-month delay on this. But the co-operation of the county council and those two district councils has, to my mind, been an admirable example of how local authorities can work together in the national interest.

I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmad for his very encouraging response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Grand Committee

In summary, these amendments would give local authorities the flexibility to take local decisions on whether pensioners should be included in any changes to council tax discount arrangements and on whether the single person discount should be reduced. This would allow good judgment to prevail locally, and no new burdens would be placed on the poor and vulnerable groups currently helped by the council tax benefit. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tope and I have three amendments that are grouped with the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Best, has addressed. He made a very compelling speech. If it really is possible to make the reductions he suggested in the single person relief that would eliminate the need to have to make difficult cuts across the board, particularly to those at the bottom end of the income scale—others have devoted a good deal of time in this committee to analysing those problems—it should be looked at extremely carefully. I must confess that I have not read the IFS report, but I have seen the figures produced by the LGA and they seem pretty persuasive. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say about them.

The other theme from the noble Lord, Lord Best—and I say, in parenthesis, that he has absolutely no reason to apologise for the length of his speech, which was one of the most important speeches we have heard during the Committee stage—was the question of local discretion against central direction. It is to this that my three amendments are addressed. They do not have quite the sweep of the noble Lord’s amendments, particularly Amendment 93ZA, but they are nevertheless important.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

83ZA: Schedule 4, page 60, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (4)

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I can deal with this more briefly than the previous debate. I to some extent share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, at the reaction that he got from both Front Benches. Amendment 83ZA is a probing amendment to ask whether we really need to prescribe in this way the details of how a local scheme should be produced, or when the scheme is revised or replaced.

There are very good reasons why, once a scheme is up and running, the local authority should be perfectly able to decide if and when revisions are necessary. If they are going to have true discretion and flexibility over the provision of local support schemes, the procedures relating to the preparation of the schemes and their revision should also be under local control. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Thank you very much.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The whole Committee will be grateful to my noble friend for her careful answer to the points made in the debate. We shall want to read carefully what she has said and, if so advised, to return to the matter later. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say that I am about to withdraw myself. I have to make preparations to get off to celebrate my diamond wedding in Scotland. I hope that I may be forgiven. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—I would not wish to keep him from his celebration and we pass on our best wishes to him for it—I note that, again, the Government refuse to give any practical help to local authorities on the issue of vulnerable people. We know why that is, as they are leaving local authorities high and dry to make those difficult decisions, not wanting to take any responsibility themselves. That will be a continuing theme of the Bill, and I am sure that we will return to it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In a sense, the noble Baroness is saying that the Government are imposing on local authorities the judgment on whether to help vulnerable people at the expense of slightly less vulnerable people. If the Government are imposing such decisions, they should take responsibility for making those judgments.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 83ZA withdrawn.

Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I was explaining that to have to do this in short order at a time of considerable turbulence—when staffing levels are under pressure, budgets are being cut, and systemic and organisational changes due to housing benefit being rolled into universal credit are being contemplated—is simply unreasonable. At this point, perhaps I should refer to the report of the Local Government Chronicle from 16 February this year. It says:

“More suppliers have joined in the criticism of the government’s welfare reform timetable that risks leaving councils to foot the entire bill for a £480m gap in council tax benefit funding. With Capita having already labelled next year’s deadline ‘impossible’, other suppliers have confirmed they have raised the issue with the Department for Communities and Local Government. As previously reported by LGC, Capita wrote to more than 150 customers in January telling them: ‘It will not be possible to put new systems in place by March 2013, when councils are due to set up their own council tax benefit schemes incorporating a 10% cut in funding’”.

If local authorities are to fulfil the task of taking account of local factors, and in particular to deliver positive work incentives in drawing up a draft scheme, they must know the detail of the universal credit, which will come into existence in 2013. This is especially so given the need for consultation. The statement of intent requires a billing authority to consult any major precepting authority that has the power to issue a precept to it, then to publish a draft scheme, and then to consult such other persons as are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme.

What is the latest time at which the Government think that consultation can proceed under these provisions? As for major precepting authorities, it has yet to be determined how funding is to be allocated between the tiers. Although the final say is with the billing authorities, any disagreement on the draft at this point might have considerable impact on the timing of the publication of a draft scheme. Those others who are likely to have an interest in the operation of the scheme could be a very wide group of people.

We discussed last week that it should certainly include local precepting authorities, which will bear part of the cost. When the Government have felt fit to remind local authorities of their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, making it clear that they will have to consider how a scheme might affect people who share a relevant protective characteristic, they will certainly need to consider the impact of their scheme on disabled people.

Local authorities have a specific duty under the Child Poverty Act to work with local partners to reduce and mitigate the effects of child poverty. They will be required to take into account their local child poverty needs assessment in designing and developing localised schemes. They will also need to have regard to the position of those at risk of becoming homeless. The statement of intent makes it abundantly clear that inadequate consultation could lead to judicial review, a matter to which we will return shortly.

The Government know that they are putting local government in an extremely difficult position by this timetable. That is why they are validating consultation commenced before the passing of the Act and why they are implicitly encouraging a consultation period of less than the 12 weeks encouraged by the code. This simply will not do. The statement is clear about the prescribed pension credit age scheme, and the Government have been clear that, in developing local council tax reduction schemes, vulnerable groups should be protected. They declined to define further “vulnerable groups”, but we will press them on that later.

Vulnerable groups should be protected and are clearly entitled to be consulted in a meaningful way. The Government are offering or insisting on one they made earlier, in the form of a default scheme. This is designed to be equivalent to existing arrangements. Of course, for those tempted to take this up or who are left with no practical option but to do so, that comes at a cost, because they will have to find the 10% cut in funding. Those who cannot live with the default system are encouraged to adopt a system using the same factors as present, as that would reduce the amount of time and expense in changing the IT systems. That is hardly a principled base on which to build a council tax benefit system.

If local authorities are to play the part required of them, whether we agree with it or not, it must surely be right for them to be given time to do the job properly. We are well aware that councils are working hard to meet the exceptional challenges that this legislation brings. Local government has a strong history of delivering the near impossible, but the timetable must be judged not by the pace of the quickest and the best resourced—those who have a ready pool of extra resources from second homes and empty properties—but surely by the least well resourced, who run the risk of having the default scheme imposed with the 10%-plus hit on services.

We are aware that there is a view that if there is to be a year’s deferral, the Government will extract their 10% by some other means. The Government seem to be adept at finding money here or there for a waste collection scheme or change in fuel duty. However, this is fundamentally about fairness; the Government are asking a lot of local authorities. A chance to do the job properly in the interests of the poorest and most disadvantaged is not unreasonable. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I added my name to some of these amendments. I do not need to go quite as far back as 16 February, which was the date of the Local Government Chronicle article from which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, quoted. I go back to a meeting held on 28 May for London Councils, which that body asked me to chair and which was attended by a number of your Lordships. It was addressed by senior officials of London Councils and it aroused in me considerable apprehensions about the timetable to which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred. At that time, it was clear to those officials that a number of councils in London would have difficulty in adhering to the timetable. That caused me some alarm. My noble friend Lady Hanham will remember that I came to see her and expressed some of the anxieties that had been voiced on that occasion. My noble friend undertook to take account of them and asked that the bodies write to her directly because she had not had quite the same message from the officials in her department, and they did.

However, since then it has become apparent that quite a lot of councils have taken the bit between their teeth. They have realised where they are, and that they will have to devise and adopt schemes for council tax support, as required by the Bill. I am sure that many of them have no wish to be involved in a default scheme, although that is always a fall-back. They have got on with it.

Indeed, when I consulted the Local Government Association—I do not think I need to declare my interest again—its members’ view was made clear to me. Given, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, that £500 million savings have to be found in any event, and one remembers that actually the commitment for that goes back to the initial statement in 2010, the dangers of postponement exceed the dangers of trying to keep to the timetable. In putting my name to the amendment, I wanted primarily to raise the anxieties that had been expressed by London Councils, recognising, as does the noble Lord, that this is not a universal view of local authorities.

The main problem that London Councils saw in implementing the date in the Bill is that it would be nearly impossible for councils to be able to achieve what they wanted to achieve by the due date, given the administrative problems with which they would be faced. More particularly, they would be faced with IT problems. Councils, as everyone knows, use a great deal of IT in drawing up their budgets, devising policies and administering the results of their decisions. Much of that is quite properly outsourced to expert providers. At that time, back in May, London Councils saw that there would be some difficulty in getting those providers to come up with the necessary changes.

However, as I said, it now becomes clear that a good many councils are getting on with it. It is to the credit of local government that they are not sitting back, holding up their hands in horror and saying that they cannot deal with it. They do not wish to be where they are, but they have to accept that the Government have set the timetable and they are jolly well going to do their best, as the representatives of the people in the area for which they are councillors, to go ahead and get on with it.

Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

59: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Changes to national business rate policy
The Secretary of State may not make any changes to national business rate policy which impact on local business rate yields without first consulting all interested parties.”

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am delighted that what we have come to call the enlarged coalition is supporting the amendment.

It addresses a simple point. Under the existing system whereby business rates are pooled and go to central government, a change in the system of relief from business rates is entirely a matter for central government and has no implications for local authorities. However, once the retained business rate scheme is working, then local authorities will of course have a direct interest in such changes. Indeed, there could be circumstances where a change in the way in which business rates and relief from them are assessed could give rise to some considerable difficulties for local authorities in their budgeting and managing their expenditure.

Of course, this is inherent in the change. The Government are indeed transferring some of the risk to local authorities because that seems to be an inevitable consequence. What we are asking for here—it is a simple point—is that the Government should consult local authorities and the local authority organisations before any such changes are made, so that they can at least have a say and perhaps do their best to persuade the Government when a particular change is not appropriate. Those local authorities and organisations will have an argument because the change may well affect their funding. The least we can therefore ask, and it is a modest request, is that the Government accept this new clause and accept that local authorities should be consulted before there are changes in the business rate. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the broad alliance remains intact. We are very happy to support the amendment. The key points have been made. We are in a changed environment where what happens to business rates can have a direct impact on local government and this request is straightforward and honest, as the noble Lord described.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I thank the alliance for its comments on the amendment. In particular I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his explanation of the proposed new clause. I do not suppose that any noble Lord will be surprised to hear me say that I do not consider that such a provision is appropriate or necessary.

I fully understand that in the current system, where business rates are not retained locally, changes to national business rates policy do not affect the level of funding that authorities receive. However, in future such changes could impact on the level of funding available to a local authority. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand that the Government may need at some stage to make changes to the national business rates policy for a variety of reasons. In the majority of cases it is likely that any changes will have been consulted on, but this may not always be the case. Changes to reliefs are a matter for the Chancellor, and a deferral system that gave businesses the opportunity to defer payment of 60% of the increase in their 2012 business rate bills as a result of the RPI uprating was announced in the autumn Statement. If the Government had consulted on that, businesses would have had to wait at least two or three months longer to receive the benefit, which in some cases could have meant the difference between shutting or remaining open. I use that as an example.

I assure my noble friend that where the Government implement a change to national business rates policy that will involve a net additional cost to local government—a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Tope—this will be picked up through the new burdens policy. It will be treated as a new burden in line with our commitment to keeping the downward pressure on council tax as far as possible. Given this clear commitment that provides an assurance to local government, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. Of course I understand that the change may work both ways. If local authorities are going to benefit from the change, the argument not to have consultation but to get on and make the payments is much stronger. However, if there is a change that will increase the burdens on a local authority, my noble friend gave an undertaking that there would be consultation—so I cannot understand why this should not go in the Bill. It would be very reassuring to local authorities and would not place an undue burden on central government. If the Government were going to change the policy to the disadvantage of local government, there is no reason why a three-month delay should not be a perfectly satisfactory way of dealing with the statutory obligation to consult. Of course we do not vote in Grand Committee, but there is a stronger argument for this amendment than perhaps my noble friend acknowledged. Perhaps she might like to look at it again.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I made the point, which the noble Lord accepted, that there may need to be flexibility on this. I gave the example of changes in the autumn Statement that would have been delayed if there had been consultation. It was a perfectly reasonable point. Without exception, the Government will want to consult where appropriate and where time allows, but there will be occasions when it is not in anybody’s interests to do so for reasons of speed. The proposed new clause would just constrain their ability to do that. Putting it in the Bill would be less than helpful.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says and we would wish to consult those advising us on that. I take the point that this is a wide-ranging amendment but, with different drafting to which we could return on Report, we might be able to write something in on this. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In this context, I and others reject localism for what it really is: dumping the cuts on local authorities to pass on to needy citizens without power. I think it is shameful. I really hope that no noble Lord will ever say that they welcome localism but do not like the cuts, because that is why we are having the localising of what should be a national benefit, with a shameful set of outcomes. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, for some reason that I am not sure I understand, my Amendment 73A has found itself grouped with the amendment that has just been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I can assure the Committee that I will be a good deal briefer in speaking to this amendment because it has a rather narrow specific intent. It is more of an exploratory amendment, which attempts to link the question of the Government’s support for local authorities in the changing circumstances introduced by this Bill to the now well established new burdens doctrine published some years ago by the previous Government, which, in summary, states that the,

“additional cost of all new burdens placed on local authorities … by central Government must be assessed and fully and properly funded”.

My question to my noble friend is: what assurances can the Government give about the future shape of the arrangements under this Bill, and what are the Government’s intentions about the future funding levels? There is some anxiety on the part of the Local Government Association about the future—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA, like everyone else; it is always good for a laugh, and I think that helps. Amendment 73A simply says that it should be assessed every year, which is intended to link the regular annual support for local authorities with the new burdens that have been imposed upon them as a result of the Bill. I do not know what my noble friend will be able to say about that but certainly the local authorities are seeking reassurance on it.

On the subject of the Local Government Association, it was suggested during the debate on the previous amendment that somehow it is not reflecting the views of its member councils and it should therefore rethink its stance. It has made it clear—and made it clear again to me this morning—that it remains in favour in principle of the localisation of support for council tax. That is the LGA’s view and it is sticking to it. Of course it is looking for assurances of the kind that I have given. There may be others that we will come to later. However, it does not come well from the party opposite to suggest that a thoroughly representative body, which represents virtually every council in the country, is somehow misdirecting itself and does not know what it is saying. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who made that suggestion. He knows a great deal about this—probably much more than I do. However, if I may defend the association, it has worked out its views and has made perfectly clear—to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, I am sure—what it wants. It is in favour of the localisation of council tax support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Perhaps I misheard the noble Lord. I understood that he was asking the LGA to reconsider its view. He is perfectly entitled to do so, but it is against the background that the association has considered its opinions on this extremely carefully and has made its decision. Of course it is not unanimous; no one is suggesting that it is. If there were unanimity, the millennium would have arrived. In matters of local authority finance, there are many different points of view. Perhaps we may leave it at that.

In speaking to this amendment, I am looking for some assurance from the Government on how they see the future of this structure. Local authorities are anxious that, after the next comprehensive spending review, they will find themselves bearing a significantly larger proportion of the total cost than is envisaged at the moment. If my noble friend could give any assurances on that, I know they will be very well received.

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I am not a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I certainly do not claim to speak for it. I said in a debate on an earlier amendment that the views of local authorities within the Local Government Association, as most are, have differed on this issue, regardless of political control. There are certainly Labour-majority councils that have supported what they thought was the localisation of council tax. There are some in my own authority. However, as people have come to realise the implications of what we are debating today, that support has become more questioning. I shall put it no more strongly than that. The briefing that I imagine we have all had from the LGA today states:

“The LGA supports the principle of localising responsibility for decisions about the incidence of council tax”.

The question is whether that is what we are getting now but maybe that is for another debate.

I support my noble friend Lord Jenkin. My noble friend Lord Shipley and I have added our names to Amendment 73A, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, explained very well. The concern that we address with this amendment is the expectation that, for a range of reasons, the cost of council tax support will increase. More people are likely to claim it because, sadly, they will fall into that category, perhaps because the change in wording from “benefit” to “support” will—wrongly, maybe—encourage more people to feel able to claim it. Therefore it is highly probable that the costs will increase in years to come. We seek from the Government an indication of how they intend to deal with that and, more particularly, an assurance that it will fit under the new burdens doctrine and that the increased costs, assessed annually by the Government, will be met in full in accordance with the doctrine. That is the purport of the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. We seek reassurance from the Government.