Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Report stage
Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments which, as the Minister has said, bring decisions made by the Secretary of State on urban development areas back to Parliament in the form of affirmative resolutions rather than negative resolutions. In my view, which I have expressed frequently, far too much in this enormous Bill is set out in the form of decisions left entirely to the Secretary of State to fill in by way of statutory instruments. Far too often, the only restraint is the wholly inadequate procedure of negative resolutions. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the overreach in the original drafting and has brought forward amendments to correct that.

In Committee, I expressed general support for the proposition of locally led development corporations, and that was helped on by the Minister’s reassuring words to the effect that the wide discretion given to the Secretary of State in Clause 162 to designate a development corporation is, in practice, entirely conditional on there first being a positive initiative from that locality. That is all the more important in view of the strange reluctance to include town and parish councils in the formal consultation process.

In responding to this debate, I would be very grateful if the Minister could make assurance doubly sure on that point of local initiation and leadership of the new generation of development corporations. I look forward to hearing her reassurance on that point.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my intervention on this subject will be brief. I did not speak on development corporations in Committee, but I have been following the subject very carefully. In response to this very short debate, or perhaps more appropriately in a subsequent letter, might my noble friend explain to us a little more about how the various forms of development corporations are intended to be deployed?

As far as I can see, in addition to the mayoral development corporations—which are not much affected by this Bill—we will continue to have scope for urban development corporations initiated by the Secretary of State, we will continue to have scope for new town development corporations initiated by the Secretary and we will have locally led urban development corporations and locally led new town development corporations that may be established at the initiative of local authorities under this Bill. By my count, we have five different forms of development corporations.

There is a certain amount of speculation about under what circumstances, in what areas and for what purposes these development corporations may be deployed, and about the Government’s intentions. It would be reassuring to many to hear from the Government about that, and in particular about their presumption that they would proceed, particularly for new towns and new development corporations, by reference to those that are locally led and arise from local authority proposals, as distinct from continuing to use the powers for the Secretary of State to designate an area and introduce a development corporation at his or her own initiative. It would be jolly helpful to have more flesh on the bones of what these various development corporations look like and how they will be deployed by government.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend and to heartily endorse and agree with what he had to say about the importance of inclusiveness and inclusion by design. In this group of amendments, I also endorse firmly the importance of design as an integral part of the planning system. As I understand it, the Government are firmly in that camp. They believe that design can ensure that we create far more fit-for-purpose places in which to live. That is what design is all about: fitness for purpose. The Government also think that they can be beautiful places. I am sure each of us has our own view of what beauty might be in this context, and I do not suspect that we can easily write it into legislation.

What is rather interesting is that we have in Schedule 7 a reference to the fact that local authorities must prepare such a design code. Of course, behind that lies—as ever in debates on this section of the Bill—the National Planning Policy Framework, which has within it the idea of what those design codes must look like. Even behind that, there is the national model design code—fine. But then let us have a look at what is in the relevant chapter of the Government’s draft National Planning Policy Framework. Here, I want to go back to the discussion we had earlier. I will not repeat it all, but it was essentially about the centrality of environmental principles, the achievement of our net-zero objectives, nature recovery strategies and biodiversity net gain. All those things are terrifically important, so you would imagine, would you not, that because design and place-making have to start from core principles, they would be reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework when it considers what well-designed and beautiful places need to be, but that is not how it works at all.

Before I expand a little more on chapter 12 of the draft National Planning Policy Framework, let me just say that it is not me saying that environmental principles are central to this issue. The Royal Town Planning Institute, together with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and friends from LDA Design, whom I know well—I declare an interest; my son-in-law works for them—worked on a document called Cracking the Code, which was published a year ago, about the national design code and the question of how that should reflect environmental principles. Let me quote one paragraph from the report:

“Design codes should have a critical role to play in planning for the future of places and ensuring that opportunities to maximise development’s contribution to net zero and nature recovery are locked in from the outset, through strong spatial development frameworks and strategic design requirements. Codes can outline ways for developments to combine net zero and nature recovery with place making and encourage unique and innovative approaches to green and blue infrastructure and the role of landscape.”


So, they captured the whole centrality of the environmental argument in a paragraph.

The practicalities of this are immediately evident. If you are designing new towns now, which will be built mostly in the 2030s and will be lived in through the 2060s, 2070s and 2080s, you have to think about what a carbon-free public space—and, for that matter, private space—looks like. What does the transport look like? What does the heating look like? How do people live? How do they move around? There is no point designing places that do not take full account of those changes that are in prospect.

You would find all that in the National Planning Policy Framework, would you not? There is brief reference somewhere here to the environment, but not much. What there is, however, is a list of the things that the design codes and design processes should reflect. It includes visually attractive, good architecture; sympathy to local character and history; a sense of place; optimising the potential to sustain development in the future; safe, inclusive, accessible; promoting health and well-being. These are all admirable, and there is then a full paragraph on trees, but I cannot find anywhere else any reference to nature recovery, biodiversity, environmental principles or the processes for how design can contribute, and is central, to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I seek to reassure the noble Lord that it will be covered in regulations.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

It might be covered in the national model design code, but I do not think that is how it looks at the moment. The purpose of this document last year was to say, “Put it into the national model design code”. Logically, if you are going to do that, you have to at least signal its importance in the National Planning Policy Framework. Otherwise, all your guidance —because, technically, that is what it is—simply does not cohere together. What we have discovered, which is at the heart of many of these arguments, is that in large measure we do not yet know—we are still to debate this—how far what the Government say in the National Planning Policy Framework will be national development management policies and, by extension, cannot be varied from in local plans. So we have this inexorable relationship between things that we do not know and how it is going to turn out in the future.

Amendment 222 is very simply saying, because we do not know and cannot find evidence of the centrality of these environmental principles to the national model design code or the National Planning Policy Framework, let us put them in the Bill. All I am doing in this context is saying that, at this stage, I want to know that they will be central to the design approach—and if they are not, they ought to be. I hope that Ministers will be able to reassure me on that point.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will contribute to this group in relation to the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. In existing legislation, Section 19(1B) and (1C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that:

“Each local planning authority must identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the authority’s area… Policies to address those priorities must be set out in the local planning authority’s development plan documents (taken as a whole).”


Therefore, the legislation has it that strategic priorities must be set out and policies must be set out to meet them.

Paragraph 21 of the National Planning Policy Framework in the consultation document recently issued says that:

“Plans should make explicit which policies are strategic policies. These should be limited to those necessary to address the strategic priorities of the area”.


Paragraph 17 states that the development plan

“must include strategic policies to address each local planning authority’s priorities for the development and use of land in its area.”

Therefore, the legislation is carried through into the National Planning Policy Framework. Also, the NPPF is clear that there is an important distinction to be made between strategic and non-strategic policies. I will not dwell on those now, as it is not relevant for this purpose. Suffice to say that “strategic” in front of policies seems important.

However, the Government have decided to omit “strategic”, to omit any reference to strategic priorities or a requirement that the local plan in a plan-making process should identify those priorities and show how policies meet them. I cannot for the life of me understand why. I admit that these are probing amendments to find out why. I do not think that, as a proposition, the structure of the NPPF in paragraphs 17 and 21 should be left stranded, with the relevant legislative provisions in Section 19 of the 2004 Act being omitted and not being substituted with anything in the current legislation that gives rise to that part of the NPPF.

The Government may say, “Well, it’s guidance and that’s fine—that’s what we’re saying”. Until now it has been perfectly understood that there is a legislative structure, and that the guidance follows it. I am not sure that we should arrive at a position where there is guidance with no legislative structure underpinning it. I cannot see any mischief in putting the strategic priorities and strategic policies back in. I see no mischief in putting “strategic” in front of “policies”. It avoids any lack of clarity about what kind of policies we are talking about. I cannot see why the Bill should not be amended to put it in line with where the current situation is and where the NPPF intends to go.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I briefly follow-up on that question which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has left hanging.

We seem to have several moving parts here. I do not want to detain anybody any longer than necessary. We have the guidance of the NPPF, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has outlined its current impact on how local plans are developed. We now have the statutory NDMPs. Eventually we will get used to that acronym, I guess. Earlier this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, told noble Lords that she thought that the occasions of conflict between the NDMPs and local plans would be very rare, so rare that they did not need referencing but, on the other hand, possibly so onerous that it would be burdensome to make every one be referred back to your Lordships.

However, the political context of the NDMPs is of trying to retrieve a situation that was created last year by multiple changes in direction within the department, and by Ministers, about what they wanted local plans to achieve. Do they want them to achieve a very large number of houses, no houses at all, or as many houses as the local area thinks are appropriate?

All that will be resolved when—eventually—the NDMPs are published, because that is when we will be told what the Government intend local plans to produce. At that point it seems foreseeable—I say only foreseeable, not certain—that there will be areas of conflict between the citizens’ assemblies brought forward by the noble Baroness’s amendment and the common consultation process that we have traditionally followed, as the local plan emerges and the NDMPs dictate a different course of action. Where does the guidance to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred fit into that? Which fits into what and at which part?

In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also said, perhaps not with the conviction that I had hoped to hear, that, in the event of a neighbourhood plan being more up to date than a local plan—hence in date—it would stand up against an NDMP central government directive. I would be delighted if that is true, but I would be substantially surprised if she says that she did say that; I must have misheard something.

We have some moving parts here, and it is a terribly inconvenient time of the day to resolve those difficulties. A lengthy letter may be the solution, but I just pose those questions. This is the fundamental way in which the current Government are aiming to square a circle out of their national planning policy. Whether they want more houses, where they want them and how fast—all those things—are driven by what comes out of local plans, and they will be framed by what is in the NDMPs, which are not published. Forgive me if I am jumping to a conclusion here; perhaps the planning management policy that comes out will say, “It is okay, guys; do your own thing and send your local plans in when they are ready”, but I have a feeling that that is not the context in which they are being drawn up.

Anything that the noble Earl or the noble Baroness can say to clarify that situation, either this evening or in a subsequent written report, would be gratefully received on this side, because we are baffled and bemused by how this is all supposed to hang together, as things stand.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has said about the need for monitoring and evaluating any government process, but particularly one as deep-seated and far-ranging as this is obviously intended to be.

I will speak to Amendments 24, 26, 32 and 49, all of which appear in this group. They are tabled to explore how the outputs from the mechanism that Clause 1 sets up are to be monitored and, even more importantly, evaluated. Noble Lords will know that Governments are notoriously slack at carrying out timely and effective evaluation of their policies. They are very often launched in a blaze of glory, or, on this occasion, in a White Paper, and what follows is often a serious disappointment. My noble friend Lady Pinnock has shaped that argument very well in the debate on the first group. Avoiding monitoring and evaluation is deep-seated in the government machine, which actively avoids formal monitoring as far as it can and definitely seeks to avoid any public evaluation of what that monitoring reveals. That is not specific to this Government: I would be stretching my memory to think of a Government who have eagerly embraced independent evaluation and monitoring of any of their policies.

Interestingly, the Government’s White Paper is very strong on “accountability” and “transparency”, which it describes as key attributes that will be built into the levelling-up programme. Unfortunately, the Bill completely omits to mention these two essential characteristics of levelling up, and for that matter, it also omits any mention of specific missions. These amendments are designed to tackle that gap. No doubt my amendments and those of the noble Baroness could be strengthened, and I hope we will see how best we can do that. I regard these as quite modest, de minimis amendments to establish the principle of what is needed.

The first of the amendments I have tabled with my noble friend Lady Pinnock, Amendment 24, simply inserts another prerequisite for any mission statement coming into force: that there must first be an affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament, not merely having them laid before us. In fact, that is a really basic requirement for any such far-reaching policy package: it should have proper parliamentary scrutiny. Without this amendment or something very like it, not one of the mission statements will have ever received any direct democratic endorsement.

The Minister may say that this was in the Conservative manifesto of 2019. The slogan was certainly in the manifesto, but were the missions? No, they were not. Were the metrics of any of the missions in the manifesto? No, they were not. Importantly, bearing in mind that this is a political process, did the Government even have a settled view on what levelling up was during the passage of three Prime Ministers through Downing Street and four changes of Secretary of State last year? No, they did not have a settled view. In fact, except for an unusually hostile reception of a Budget last autumn, levelling up would now be taking off in a completely different direction, with a completely different Administration and objectives. A 2019 election slogan cannot absolve the mission statements from parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, the Government’s own White Paper makes it clear that such accountability and transparency in the process itself is important.

On transparency, I admit that my claim that it is all in the White Paper overlooks the fact that that was indeed three Prime Ministers ago, and maybe that has been scrubbed in the nine months since. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether it is still an important principle in the Government’s thinking about levelling up. I therefore hope that I will get a positive answer from the Minister on Amendment 24, and that she will be very quick and willing to accept it.

Amendment 26 points to a critical weakness in Clause 1: the complete absence of accountability of Ministers of the Crown. Clause 1(8) rushes from dealing with the first iteration of statements of mission—those that are in front of us now via the White Paper—to publishing the second iteration, without ever passing “Go”. There is no mention in Clause 1(8) of independently examined evidence and evaluation of what has happened so far and no accompanying analysis, but simply a straight jump to laying it before Parliament, which will be, as far as I understand it, on a take-it-or-leave-it unamendable basis. Again, the Minister may be able to reassure me that these will be open, debatable and amendable by Parliament. I should be very pleased, and totally astonished, if she were to say that.

Amendment 26 requires that independent evaluations be published to accompany the new draft mission statements when they come before Parliament, and that the draft revised missions themselves are constructed by the process set out in Amendment 29, which we will come to later this evening. That requires that such missions shall, prior to their adoption, have been endorsed by the devolved Administrations and by local government within England in respect of their specific areas.

A central part of levelling up has to be a built-in independent evaluation system providing analysis alongside each round of mission statements. Otherwise, we all know what will happen—it happens all the time: targets will be fudged and stretched and outcomes will not be monitored properly, yet the process will still go blithely on, repeating the same errors and omissions time and again until, in due course, it lapses into history and is replaced by the latest sparkly new slogan. Levelling up will become just another in a long string of non-performing slogans.

That brings me to Amendment 32 in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. I appreciate their support. As it stands, Clause 2(2)(a) only requires that the formal periodic report on levelling up includes the Minister’s own assessment of how well things are going. Our amendment would require that, alongside that ministerial assessment, there should be

“an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the progress that has been made”.

That is not very challenging, is it? The effectiveness of the progress that has been made should be supported by an independent evaluation.

That is surely the true test of accountability—for the evaluation to be based on objective evidence, not a subjective assessment, least of all a subjective assessment made by the person being held to account. We would not accept in most areas of responsibility that the accountability, assessment and evaluation is done by the person being held to account. I very much hope that the Minister agrees and will accept Amendment 32 in due course.

Finally, Amendment 49, to which my noble friend Lady Pinnock has added her name, which I appreciate, takes these essential reforms forward to apply to all future iterations of statements of mission. This is not just about getting it right now; it is about embedding a process that will continue indefinitely as levelling up rolls out iteration after iteration.

Taken together, these four amendments plug the huge gap between the good intentions and smooth words in the White Paper and the stark, Whitehall-controlled process being set out in the Bill. I look forward to hearing that they find favour with your Lordships and the Minister.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

If I may, I wish to speak to Amendment 25 in my name. I begin by drawing attention to my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, which will become more relevant in relation to the later housing, planning and development-related issues than to this first part relating to missions.

In the earlier group, there was a reference to this Bill being more than one Bill. It is in truth three Bills all in one place. When we started out in this, I was reminded of that story about the elephant: “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” Let us take it just one bite at a time and try not to eat it all in one go.

I did want to make a point about missions, and I will add to it a little. Amendment 25, to which I speak, was really about trying to explore, with my noble friends on the Front Bench, the Government’s overall attitude to the process of parliamentary scrutiny of their policy priorities. For example, a number of noble Lords will have participated in our recent scrutiny of the Procurement Bill. In the that Bill, now in the other place, the Government included a provision relating to parliamentary scrutiny of the national procurement policy statement, an important statement of the Government’s priorities. The Government are resisting being told what those priorities should be, but none the less consented in the Bill, in the other place, that it was Parliament’s job, if it did not approve of their priorities, to say so by means of a Motion.

Amendment 25, which is subtly different from Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others, which says that Parliament must approve the statements, is in precisely the same form as the Procurement Bill regarding the scrutiny of the national procurement policy statement, in that the statement will be proceeded with unless either House resolves not to approve it within 40 days. It uses exactly the same terminology; I have simply lifted it from the Procurement Bill.

I want to know, what is the difference? Why, in this respect, do the Government not think it appropriate for Parliament to approve—or, indeed, if it objects, not to approve—of the Government’s executive decisions? They are undoubtedly important. The priorities in the Procurement Bill are terribly important. The missions are terribly important. I cannot understand why one should have this form of scrutiny and the other should not. My first question to my noble friend is: why can we not have the same degree of scrutiny in relation to this statement as the Government are giving us in relation to the national procurement policy statement?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister some questions about the application of this innocuous amendment, as he has described it. It is not that innocuous because it is a power to take over the local plan process and to state that a local authority must adopt the plan that has been prepared for it.

To give the House a little background, in 2010 the information I was given as a Minister was that around 26% of local authorities had a local plan and 74% did not. That was a large proportion, bearing in mind that all authorities—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am trying to follow this amendment and the debate on it. I understood a local development scheme to be a description on the part of the local authority of how it is going to go about the process of creating its local development plan, not the local development plan itself. To that extent, the amendment, while not technical, in effect takes over, where a local authority has failed to say that it will undertake the process of local development plan preparation, to put a scheme in place for that to happen, but as a consequence of that it does not take over the plan-making process itself.

[Lord Stunell]

My Lords, it will be interesting to see whether the Minister takes that as being the basis of this proposal. It does not appear to be when one looks at the explanation of the Bill, nor at that of the impact assessment in relation to Clause 129 and its intention, nor does the amendment appear to adopt that methodology. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is correct, then some of my points are perhaps of lesser force. Nevertheless, I think there are still some important points to make clear to the House.

Faced with the reality that 74% of local planning authorities had not adopted plans in 2010, the Government put in place the National Planning Policy Framework with the very clear intention that, in the absence or in the default of a local plan, the NPPF would be the document that could and should be used by planners and developers when approaching applications in their area. There was considerable upset among local planning authorities when they saw this provision, and the final version of the NPPF allowed a period of grace. There was of course a risk to local authorities in not having plans, which was that they would be forced to accept applications that they believed were not in the best interests of their area and which had not been consulted on with local communities.

I am happy to report, and I think this is in the material provided by the Government in the impact assessment, that we are now in the position that rather than 74% of local authorities not having plans, only 18% do not, so there has been a huge upsurge in the number of local plans that have been brought forward and come to fruition. That has undoubtedly been driven by the introduction of the NPPF and local authorities’ fear that if they dragged their feet further, they would lose control of the process.

It is worth remembering that within the 18% that have not yet produced plans, there will be many areas where one or other of the 1,800 neighbourhood plans, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to in the previous debate, will be brought forward, so there will be neighbourhood plans being prepared and maybe even approved in some of the areas where at present there is no approved plan.

Regarding Clause 129, the impact assessment says that one of the problems with the existing powers, which this provision replaces, is that although the Secretary of State already has a power to take over the process, if he does so, he has to take it over lock, stock and barrel, without exception, from A to Z. The impact assessment implies that the existing power is too big a stick and too disproportionate, so it has not been used. It argues—although these are not the words used—that rather than a great big stick, a smaller stick is needed, as that would be more useful to the Secretary of State in getting the required result. In fact, the proposed power is very wide ranging and far from being a smaller stick.

I draw to noble Lords’ attention the fact that the process set out here is an anti-localism process which will lead to local authorities losing control of the planning process which is at the heart of the localism agenda. It is also unnecessary because of the progress that has been made since the introduction of the NPPF and the threat that is hanging over local authorities that developers’ applications will be judged on the NPPF criteria if there is not a local plan. Local authorities have a very strong incentive to act at the moment. It clearly is working as a number of authorities have reacted and the shortfall has reduced from 74% to 18%. In any case, there is also the existing power which the impact assessment sets out, as well as a reserve power, so that a local planning authority that fails to fulfil its statutory requirement to start the local plan process can be challenged in court. This is therefore a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Will the Minister also address the issue of what will trigger this power? As it appears in the Marshalled List, the amendment is in the present tense:

“If a local planning authority have not prepared a local development scheme, the Secretary of State … may”.

What is the trigger? When is the “now” of the provision? Will it be when the Bill receives Royal Assent or at some other date? There is some uncertainty about the starting point for the provision.

The provision might be ineffective in any event. How long will it take the Secretary of State to draw up local plans? Where is the capacity to do it? What is the timescale? How will local consultation work? One wonders about the operation of a public inquiry process where the local planning authority is the lead objector to the plan because it opposes what the plan projects. I cannot see how that would achieve certainty or the development of more homes more quickly than would the current process and mechanisms.

There is more to be done to get more housing. Later, there will be a debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True, which would make sure that land held by government departments within local authority areas is held more transparently and brought back into use more quickly. That is direct action that the Minister could take without interfering with the existing planning process. The amendment proposed does not seem proportionate, wise or deliverable, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the serious objections to it.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Monday 18th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall contribute briefly to this short debate. I spoke in Committee to support the Government’s Clause 115, and I shall not repeat all of that, but it remains true—I am convinced of this by reference to local circumstances that I know well—that local authorities will continue to undertake an objective assessment of need for their Gypsy and Traveller communities and do so on the basis of that need and provision for that need and a five-year supply in a way that will genuinely respond to that need while giving greater reassurance to all the community that all their housing needs will be assessed on a similar objective basis. However, what we are looking at now is an amendment to require local authorities to look at very specific characteristics of sites that have to be accommodated. Obviously, that relates to caravans and houseboats, but it seems to me that there is an issue relating particularly to travelling show people, whom I know well and whom we accommodated close to where I live, in one of their more important sites. It is a difficulty with finding sites that can accommodate a community of people who have to have both residential accommodation and the capacity to store substantial equipment. That is particularly important for travelling show people.

Could my noble friend Lord Younger, in responding to the debate, say between now and Third Reading, if he cannot accept this amendment—and I can see why he might not—whether he will at least think about whether there is are specific characteristics that could be specified in the same way in the legislation, as they are for any member of the community who requires a site for caravans or houseboats on inland waterways?

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and support the words of my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. For two years, I was a Minister in the department with the responsibility for Gypsy policy. At that time, I paid a visit to South Somerset to look at some of the provision there, and I very much endorse what my noble friend Lady Bakewell said about how that council has addressed the issue. It is worth recalling, as I said in Committee, that a large majority of Gypsy and Traveller families are given—or have got, since given is perhaps not the right word—suitable accommodation on sites and in locations acceptable to communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, in many cases local authorities around the country have accepted the need to do that and have done it willingly and effectively. But we also heard evidence in Committee—and I certainly saw evidence as a Minister—that many local communities and some local councils will do whatever they need to do to avoid facing up to their responsibilities in this respect. As a recent incident on the rugby field has shown, there is still natural, casual racism in speaking about and to Gypsies and Travellers. That certainly has an impact at the community level on the way in which policy is applied.

It is a serious backward step to have this clause in the Bill at all, but I hope that the Government can support these amendments or something of a like nature. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, described the clause as a sop to those who might wish to have discriminatory policy for the public provision of housing sites. I think that it is worse than a sop—I think that it is a gift to those who want to pursue a discriminatory housing policy. It was a very powerful lever that the national policy framework required Gypsy and Traveller provision to be part of the five-year strategic housing plan that local authorities bring forward. Gently to correct my noble friend Lady Bakewell, the Welsh Assembly has indeed got hold of this issue and insisted on a five-year supply being built in, but it is already the law in England that housing authorities should do that, and Clause 115 actually takes that provision out. So I would very much like your Lordships to give consent to anything that we can do to rescue that, and I very much hope that the Government respond.

I finish by saying that there is trouble with Gypsies; it is overwhelmingly caused, when it arises, by Gypsies who have inadequate housing and cannot find a place to stay. Therefore, they do what they can informally, often in a very disruptive way for local communities. The solution is not to chase them around the country but to provide them with the sites that they need in places that are appropriate so that they can live in harmony with the fixed or settled community, so we can have what we all want—a harmonious relationship between all the groups in England.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley]

I understand the noble Lord’s point, and he is quite right that we have to tease this out. My noble friend will tell me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, a qualifying document must be based on a suitable process for establishing how the particulars have been arrived at. For example, where a site is allocated under a local plan for housing development, as part of the process, the local planning authority will go through what I hope will be a rigorous process—I think we all know it will be—with time to examine, for example, whether it is in a flood plain and, if so, what the mitigation would be. It might also examine whether the development is environmentally sustainable and whether, from the point of view of the local highways authority, issues arise from development on a large scale.

We have to be clear whether the local plan process enables a suitable site for housing development to be included in a local plan and thereby gives rise to the potential for permission in principle being granted. This does not mean that a subsequent environmental impact assessment will have to be done on the site at that point. It means that when either that assessment or the highway authority’s response to a plan’s technical details takes place, the question will not be whether the site is right in principle but whether the assessments necessitate mitigation measures. I hope that the Government make it so that there are three processes instead of two and that the qualifying documents in the first process giving rise to permission in principle are sufficiently robust.

I have an additional question about the relationship between permission in principle and current local plan processes. A significant number of local and neighbourhood plans were made and adopted following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework and many local authorities will adopt those plans in the months following Royal Assent. Will they automatically be eligible for permission in principle through a development order? If so, how can we be confident that the necessary and rigorous processes that should be the basis for the granting of such permission have been gone through, such that local authorities are not required to go through the outline planning application processes? That relationship is very important. I hope that we can make local plans rigorous so that permission in principle can, through development orders, be applied to suitable sites.

Why do I say that? In my experience as a Member of Parliament for an area with a great deal of planning activity, I found that local communities often did not give the attention they should to, or were not engaged to the extent that they ought to be in, understanding the importance of the local plan or local development framework. We need that to happen. Permission in principle has the ancillary benefit that it will cause it to happen much more.

How often have those of us involved in these matters found that when a planning proposal with the potential for an outline planning application was brought forward, people affected began to organise on the basis that that was their moment to be heard? But in a plan-led process, that is not the moment. Instead, it is when the local plan is being put together—but that is a big process and people find it difficult to intervene. We need to ensure that people are clear about the overriding importance of local plans. If they know that a site for housing development may be granted permission in principle as a consequence of its incorporation into a neighbourhood or local plan, they are far more likely to get involved in making that happen.

[Lord Stunell]

I absolutely accept the points that the noble Lord is making about the difficulty of engaging local communities and the fact that they arrive at this process far too late. Could he say a little more about how PIP will accelerate that? The concern on these Benches is that it will leapfrog the normal process, however inadequate it is.

[Lord Lansley]

It is probably more for my noble friend the Minister to explain how the processes work. My point is simple: it is said that permission in principle is inimical to a local planning authority’s processes or democratic input, but that is not the case. It should prompt a much greater involvement on the part of local people. It should also focus the local planning authority on engaging with the people they represent, not only to ensure that there is a plan-led system, but so that it is understood that the local plan will in many instances give rise to permission in principle. That will cause people to engage with a local plan more than they have previously. For that and other reasons, I support Clause 136 and permission in principle.

Parliamentary Standards

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that I am in any way complacent about this. It is important for us to be clear—and, as a consequence, for the public to be clear—that any expenses cases that have arisen since May 2010 are dealt with under a wholly independent system. That should be understood, because I fear that the current public debate is relating to the expenses system that existed before that date, rather than taking into account the creation of the independent system that has been in place since then. On the conduct of Members, the Standards Committee has to deal with complaints on a case-by-case basis, and we have to continue to make a judgment as to whether the investigations are robust and the recommended sanctions are proportionate to the nature of the offence. We in this House have a collective responsibility for that. When it comes to the exercise of those sanctions, I find it difficult to contemplate how suspension from the service of the House, for example, could be the responsibility of an external body. It should be the responsibility of the House to impose such sanctions.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The current episode is a product of the old expenses system and would not arise now. Nevertheless, it has increased public concern and there is no doubt that the House needs to respond to that. Does the Leader of the House agree that getting the recall Bill into the Queen’s Speech and pushed forward rapidly will form an important component of the solution?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech at this stage. I simply repeat that we are committed to the introduction of proposals for a recall Bill.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Stunell and Lord Lansley

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents about the consequences of commercial decisions made by companies. He will know, not least from the points made by a number of Members during business questions, that the relationship between banking groups and their communities, as well as the service they offer to local communities, are issues of importance to Members that continue to arise. It is not just a matter for the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Perhaps he and others might like to consider whether there is a case for a debate in Back-Bench time to raise those issues on behalf of their constituents.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I welcome what the Leader of the House said about the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report and I also welcome the coalition’s commitment to fairness and to ensuring that work always pays. With that in mind, may I ask for a debate on the performance of the retail banks that are failing to support small businesses in my constituency, which are eager to invest in jobs but are denied working capital?

[Mr Lansley]

There is a synchronicity between the previous question and this one as regards the relationship between banks and our local communities. I sometimes share with my hon. Friend a sense of frustration about the extent to which the conventional banking system now supports small and medium-sized businesses. That is why our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, together with the Treasury, is so actively pursuing those issues, not least through the recent announcement of the operational start of the new business banking support and the support that that gives to new challenger banks to supply new innovative routes of lending to small businesses.