Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Chris Ruane Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I, too, want to begin by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate and by acknowledging all the hard work undertaken in Committee. In particular, I thank my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), for his highly effective dissection of key clauses. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for their excellent comments in Committee and today.

The best thing that I can say of the Ministers is that they have been extremely gracious in rejecting all my suggestions for improving the Bill. Let us be clear: the Bill will do little to promote growth or to encourage the delivery of infrastructure. As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said in Committee, it is a “rag-bag of measures” put out in haste in September as one of a number of panic measures to suggest that the Government were doing something to address the flatlining economy. There are so many things wrong with the Bill that I simply do not know where to start, but I shall highlight some of the worst offenders.

As I have said, it has not proved possible to improve the Bill in Committee or on Report today, and that is a matter of regret. The centralising, anti-localist processes that underpin clause 1 are still there. Let us be clear: this will lead to local communities losing their ability to influence planning decisions that relate to their areas. The Conservative-controlled Local Government Association has stated that clause 1 could be “counter-productive”, as the proposed criteria for measuring performance—the time taken to make a decision on major applications and the proportion of major decisions overturned on appeal—will result in a focus on blunt targets, driving unintended consequences and behaviours.

The LGA goes on to say that the Bill goes against the localism agenda by shifting authority and resources away from local planning authorities and over to the Planning Inspectorate. I could not agree more. We said several times in Committee that if the Minister was serious about improving the performance of planning authorities, he should, instead of imposing the measures in clause 1, fund the kind of projects that were clearly outlined in our evidence sessions by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association and others. Such projects would provide intensive support to local planning authorities, and evidence has clearly shown that they can turn authorities around. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has also said that, although the Government say that they want to improve the performance of local councils on planning, the Bill’s approach will be counter-productive.

We have not yet said anything today about clause 5, or about the changing demands for information from local authorities when determining applications, but we must ensure that those authorities get the information that they need to make good determinations. Speed does not necessarily make for a better decision, and a lack of relevant information will simply hold up the determination process.

As we said earlier, the introduction of clause 6 is simply disgraceful when the country is so short of affordable housing. Figures make clear the desperate need for affordable housing clear. As we noted, there was a 9% increase in statutory homelessness between April and June this year, and a 23% increase in rough sleeping over the last year. It is simply outrageous that the Government should be bringing forward measures that seek to reduce the supply of affordable housing in this country. Any measure that would reduce the level of affordable housing, other than through sensible renegotiations being undertaken by local authorities, should be rejected by this House.

I hope that Members in the other place manage to persuade the Government of the error of their ways, as we have not managed to do so here. In particular, the Minister should give serious consideration to keeping land for affordable housing in place and using money allocated by the Government for affordable housing to enable schemes deemed unviable to go ahead. The Minister has refused to look at this today, but I hope he will look at it again. The failure to accept any of today’s amendments leads me to question the motive behind clause 6. It looks more and more like a device to let unscrupulous developers renege on their section 106 obligations.

The Bill also risks huge damage to our environment by giving inadequate protection to areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, conservation areas and so on. It is not acceptable to reduce the current protection by allowing economic criteria to be part of the determination. This could reduce the ability of local authorities to ask for sensitively sited cabinets, no overhead cables and the like.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I represent the Vale of Clwyd, which has an area of outstanding natural beauty. One of the chief people in charge of it, Howard Sutcliffe, asked me to relay to Parliament his concerns about this issue. We have a beautiful area in the Vale of Clwyd, and the laws proposed by the Tories will diminish it.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes the point well. The Government have given absolutely no evidence in support of this case. We noted in Committee that BT had said a number of cabinets had been delayed, but what had led to that delay was not made clear. No evidence has been provided to show that it was because local authorities were not considering economic criteria; it was simply that they did not wish their areas to be ruined by the unsightly and inappropriate siting of broadband cabinets and overhead cables.

We need to limit clause 8 so that it covers broadband only. As I said earlier, we support broadband roll-out and did much in government to facilitate it, but this Bill does not have the balance right. It is playing fast and loose with our areas of outstanding natural beauty and our national parks, and it is putting at risk the development of tourism in some of those areas. As such, this could be a profoundly anti-growth measure when it comes to developing the tourist economy in a number of areas.

A range of organisations have made a number of points to the Government, so I hope they will take this issue away and look at it again. We need to take great care with our areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. I am sure Government Members do not wish to have these areas cluttered up with mobile masts, overhead cables and unsightly cabinets; I am sure they would want to think again in the interest of protecting our wonderful natural environment and developing tourism sensitively in those areas.

The balance is also not right with regard to the registration of village greens. Communities need time—we accept that the period could be short so that development is not held up—to register a green once it appears in a draft plan. We want to limit the trigger-happy tendencies of the Secretary of State, so clause 15 needs to be looked at again.

If the Government are serious about using major infrastructure projects to promote growth, they must do better than the measures in the Bill. Simply allowing developers to bypass local communities in decision making will not necessarily lead to new development. We need to establish that the Planning Inspectorate system will be quicker, that there will be criteria enabling it to speed up work, and that it can be applied consistently across the country.

Business needs access to finance and markets need to grow, but strangely there is no mention of that in the Bill. Tinkering around with planning is not the solution to the need for more infrastructure or economic growth. The Town and Country Planning Association has said that the Bill

“has the potential to undermining public legitimacy without dealing with core barriers to growth which are primarily the availability of credit (both development finance and mortgage availability) and the capacity and skills of the planning service.”

That is an excellent point, but the Government have not raised such issues in the Bill or in the discussions that have accompanied it.

The Government have also given no reason for the delay in business rate revaluation. They must provide evidence of winners and losers, because otherwise it will be suspected that the Bill was designed simply to help businesses in more prosperous areas.

Asking workers to give up substantial employment rights won over many decades in return for a few shares is simply deplorable. Despite the amendments that we have discussed today, the Bill could lead to pressure on employees to sign up. In Committee and again today, the Minister has shown no real understanding of the lengths to which people will go to save or retain their jobs, or to apply for jobs. He needs to take that on board.

During our debate on clause 25, a number of Members on both sides of the House gave examples—real examples from their constituencies—illustrating our concern about the clause. We fear that, rather than being voluntary, the arrangement that it proposes will cause many people to be persuaded to take up this new employment status—perhaps against their short-term or long-term interests—and to give away rights which, as I said earlier, have been fought for over generations, in return for a few shares. Incidentally, the shares will not necessarily have been valued. The Minister has still not made clear what will happen to them, or, indeed, to the employment rights of the people who have bought them, should the company go into liquidation.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about amendment 59, but I heard nothing that allayed my concerns. Indeed, I heard quite the opposite. The Minister was asked to give a categorical assurance that people seeking employment through a jobcentre who refused to attend an interview because the job would require them to take up employee shares would be entitled to refuse to attend without a sanction being applied to their benefits. The Minister told us this would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. That means there must be a set of circumstances in which an individual who refuses to attend an interview for a position that will lead to their being an employee share owner will have their benefit removed.

[Chris Ruane]

The Minister did, indeed, say it would be judged on a case-by-case basis. He also said there would be guidelines. Does my hon. Friend know whether they have been published, and whether we can have a look at them?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that I will address later. At the last count, the number of consultations underpinning this Bill had risen to four—or perhaps five—and we have had at least six sets of guidance. As far as I am aware, however, the final guidance has not yet been produced. We will wait to hear what the Minister has to say on that.