Infrastructure
Debate between Greg Clark and Nick Raynsford(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady did not hear what I said. The structural deficit the Labour Government ran was in place before the financial crisis. That is the root of the problems we now face.
I do not for a moment want to suggest those 13 years did not result in a transformation of Britain’s position in respect of infrastructure. It was transformed, all right: the quality of our infrastructure declined in relation to that of our world competitors.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman address the issue of rail and tell the House what his party did about High Speed 1 and Crossrail when it was in government? Will he congratulate the last Government on completing HS1—the first new high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel, some 15 years after the channel tunnel was opened—and on starting the Crossrail scheme, which is essential to the future of London? How can he possibly repudiate that record of achievement?
Greg Clark
That was a good example of cross-party support, and the idea that it was some unilateral initiative by the Labour party is for the birds. We should have been more ambitious; we should have gone further and faster. It will be 15 years before we can count on the first trains running on High Speed 2. Why were those plans not advanced by the previous Government from the beginning? After 13 years we could have been looking forward to seeing progress in a couple of years’ time, rather than waiting for this Government to lay the necessary legislation.
Mr Raynsford
I put it to the hon. Lady that when she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see some pretty clear references to going slowly and not following the advice of her Front-Bench colleague, who wants to accelerate development. He has not been very successful in doing that, but at least his heart is in the right place, and I am with him on that.
The Minister chose to present a case that was, frankly, absurdly partisan—perhaps to divert attention away from his difficulties with his own party, which does not always share his enthusiasm for speeding up the development of infrastructure. The implication that there was no worthwhile infrastructure investment under the previous Government and that the arrival of the current Government has unleashed a cornucopia of new infrastructure schemes is, frankly, risible.
Let us look at the record. I tried in my intervention to point out to the Minister that it was completely unfair to say that there had been no worthwhile investment, particularly in rail, under the previous Government. Let us look at the history of High Speed 1, the link between the channel tunnel and London. That link was not constructed when the channel tunnel was built, because the then Government, headed by Baroness Thatcher, did not believe in rail investment. The French did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Paris. The Belgians did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Brussels. But there was no high-speed link between the tunnel and London because the then Conservative Government did not believe in it. Eventually, the Major Government had a last-minute change of heart and began to recognise the importance of such a link, but they could not get it together and the scheme was in a state of financial uncertainty when the Labour Government came to power. The Minister is a fair-minded man, and I hope that he will recognise that High Speed 1, an important piece of infrastructure investment, was the achievement of the last Labour Government.
I would also like to remind the Minister about Crossrail. The scheme had been talked about for a very long time, since the mists of antiquity, but it was the Major Government who introduced a Bill to enable it to be built. However, rather characteristically of them, their political management in this place was so poor that they entrusted the project to a hybrid Bill Committee, which rejected it. So the Bill never progressed, the infrastructure was not built and, once again, it was left to the Labour Government to introduce the Crossrail scheme, to take the Bill through Parliament and to begin the work.
I give credit to the current Government, because they have sustained the investment in the Crossrail scheme. I am glad that they have done so, but it is risible to argue that everything being done today is wonderful and that nothing good was done before. As the Minister must recognise, the Crossrail scheme was developed by the previous Government and is being carried forward by the current Government. Making a reality of such long-term investment schemes depends on that degree of cross-party consensus.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I made no criticism of Labour in that regard. In fact, I said that these were long-term decisions, and that the proposals that he has mentioned enjoyed cross- party support. My particular criticism of the previous Government was the decision of the Minister for whom he worked, now Lord Prescott, to cancel 103 out of 140 road schemes. In the spirit of bipartisanship, will he now reflect on that point and accept that that was the wrong thing to do?
Mr Raynsford
Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the point ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) about Lord Prescott’s part in the creation of High Speed 1 and the praise that was given to him by Michael Heseltine, whom I am sure the Minister would accept as a colleague.
Mr Raynsford
Unlike the Minister’s, my speech is time-limited, and I have now given way twice. I cannot do so again, so I hope he will bear with me.
I want to take the Minister to task once more—I might give way to him again at that point, as this is a new subject—over the national infrastructure plan. The Government’s amendment to the motion is based on the absurd proposition that the national infrastructure plan is entirely the product of the current Government and that no such plan existed under the previous Government. He will know very well that Infrastructure UK was set up by the previous Government, and that all the preparatory work for the national infrastructure plan was done under that Government. That is why his Government were able to publish the national infrastructure plan in October 2010. If he thinks about it, he will realise that it would have been completely impossible to put together and publish the plan within four months or so of his party coming into government.
The national infrastructure plan was a bipartisan achievement, and I hope that we can continue this debate in a more mature spirit, and recognise that cross-party agreement is essential if we are to get the real infrastructure investment that we need and if we are to do this properly without the kind of problems that we have encountered too often in the past as a result of the failings of all Governments of all complexions.
I should also like to focus on the ambivalence that exists in relation to whether housing constitutes infrastructure. The national infrastructure plan does not define housing as infrastructure, but the Government have made provision in their Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 for £10 billion of support for investment in housing schemes. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether infrastructure should be defined so as to embrace housing and, if so, how quickly he thinks housing might benefit from that Act.
Last summer, Lord Sassoon, who was then the responsible Minister, talked about £40 billion-worth of schemes that were shovel ready—all ready to go—in the autumn. We are now well past the autumn and to the best of my knowledge not a single housing scheme has been given the go-ahead. Indeed, we have got to the point only of defining the criteria by which schemes may be assessed. This does not look like speedy progress. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on when he expects that financial support mechanism to have any impact in the housing sector, which is facing a terrible problem of undersupply.
I personally believe that it is impossible to consider infrastructure without including housing, because accommodation is needed for people just as much they need the roads or rail for access, the power supply and all the other things essential for economic development. I would therefore include provision for housing within infrastructure development. I would do so particularly at the moment because the output of housing is appalling. In the last 12 months, only 98,000 housing starts were made. I put it to the Minister, who was critical of the previous Government’s failure in this respect, that if he goes back to 2007—the last year before the recession hit—we started 185,000 homes. If his Government get anywhere near the level of output of the previous Government, they will be doing very well. They are not there at the moment; they need to go very much further and rather faster than they have. I hope they will think about how this scheme can be used to stimulate housing development.
The one other area I want to touch on is aviation. The Minister was interestingly coy about aviation. We know perfectly well—we are constantly reminded of it, not least by the Mayor of London, who I believe is of the same party as the right hon. Gentleman—that there is a chronic problem of undercapacity for aviation in London and the south-east, and an urgent need for new investment. There are and will be differences about where we believe this increase in capacity should be located. I believe that the Thames estuary is the right location and I have advocated that for a long time—I am with the Mayor on that. Other people believe that Heathrow should be expanded, while others believe Stansted is the right location. But no one who has looked at this seriously believes that we do not need to expand capacity. What have the Government done? Kicked it into touch until after the next general election. That is simply not an adequate response. I put it to the Minister that the Government will have to be more serious and should approach this issue on a more cross-party basis if we really are to get progress in infrastructure investment, which is essential to us.
National Planning Policy Framework
Debate between Greg Clark and Nick Raynsford
Greg Clark
Both points are of the utmost importance and were reflected by my hon. Friend in his contribution to the consultation. I will have more to say about that as I make progress.
It was, I think, Sir Winston Churchill who said, “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.” That might be applied to planning policy, so it is right that we have taken the approach that we did. Our reforms have three objectives—first, to transfer power to communities, to give them more power and authority in the planning system than they have been used to having for many years; secondly, to ensure that we support the building of the homes that the next generation will need and the jobs that all our constituents need now and in the future; and thirdly to ensure that the next generation inherits an environment, natural and historic, that is at least the equal of the environment that we inherited. In my view, it should be better than the environment that we inherited. I believe in progress.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Will the Minister recognise that as a result of two years of almost unprecedented chaos and confusion about where planning policy is going, we now see the lowest level of housing starts that has been recorded in recent history? Does he accept that what he has done is to create a climate where the entire house building industry is deeply worried about the prospects of new homes, and the custodians of the countryside are equally worried about whether the countryside is safe? That is the record that he has achieved over the past two years and he should apologise for the mess that he has caused.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman, of whom I am fond, is confusing his own record with that of the Government. It was his Government who, in over a decade in power, built on average the lowest number of houses in peacetime in the past 100 years. Since the low point for house building during the recession, housing starts are up by 25%. I commend to him what his right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has said:
“I inherited the regional spatial strategies”.
I think that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) had something to do with those.
Greg Clark
Another person who is keen not to be associated with the strategies—I understand that. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne said that he
“quickly found that they had…few friends”—
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is another ex-friend. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
“our regional spatial strategies and our approach to planning…was too top-down”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 272WH.]
That is a matter of consensus across the House.
Core Cities
Debate between Greg Clark and Nick Raynsford(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One power that we are keen to see devolved to cities is a greater ability to invest in infrastructure, which can unlock growth and lead to financial prosperity. We have consulted on suggestions for tax increment financing and will propose our response shortly, but it is clear that cities want to be in the vanguard of using such powers.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Minister talked about the devolution of business rates, but he did not respond to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked him on Government plans to retain part of the revenue from them. If the Minister is serious about localism, will he tell the House whether the Government will consider options for devolving all business rate revenue to local government and not allowing a clawback by the Treasury?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have consulted on precisely that. It is important that there is a strong connection between an authority’s business rate receipts—all authorities; not just cities—and its policy behaviour in respect of businesses. The direction in which we are headed is very clear, but the precise technical details will be made clear in days to come.
National Planning Policy Framework
Debate between Greg Clark and Nick Raynsford
Greg Clark
Let me make some progress, and then I will of course give way to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
Let me set out the reasons for our reforms in context, which relates to the point that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) raised. The first and overriding objective is to put power in the hands of local people. Over the years, we developed arrangements in this country—most recently through the regional strategies—that sought to resolve issues outside what people thought of as their communities. I understand the reasons for that and I do not think that those efforts were ill-intentioned by any means. However, the consequence has been that many people in this country feel that planning is something that is done to them, rather than something that involves them. I am not alone in saying that: the problem was also recognised in our discussions in Committee on the Localism Bill. The last planning Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said:
“I inherited the regional spatial strategies and quickly found that they had…few friends…what was clear to me…was that our regional spatial strategies and our approach to planning…was too top-down”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 272WH.]
Greg Clark
I want to make some progress, because this is principally an opportunity for colleagues to make speeches and contributions to the consultation.
We need to make planning policy accessible if we are to achieve our aim of putting local communities in charge. That is the purpose of our reforms. It is also important to consider the effects of the policy regime that we have established. I do not pretend that the planning system is the only factor behind the low levels of house building and the difficulties in commercial development that we have at the moment. That would clearly be wrong. There are also difficulties in accessing finance, for example; there is a shared recognition that that is an important factor at this time. It is important to recognise, however, that the planning system makes an important contribution.
I have been looking at the joint submission from Shelter, Crisis, Homeless Link, the National Housing Federation—representing social housing providers—and the Chartered Institute of Housing. It says that
“reducing the quantity of policy will help simplify the planning system, make it more accessible to all users and will remove a significant barrier to much needed development”
—in this case, in social housing. Recent statistics show that in the five years to 2010, real spending on planning, through planning applications, increased by 13%, while the number of applications fell by 32%. By my reckoning, that means that the average cost has risen by something like 66%. That is a factor.
Greg Clark
May I just finish this point?
The British Chambers of Commerce has said that the system is
“too complicated, too costly and too uncertain. It creates mistrust…and holds back our recovery.”
With that breadth of analysis, it is important to recognise that the planning system is one of the factors that is leading to the silting up of the system.
Mr Raynsford
Does the Minister not recognise that, if he takes the period of five years from 2005 to 2010, which embraced the last two years of the boom before the crash and the three years of recession, he will inevitably get some pretty distorted outcomes? That is not a fair parallel. Does he also accept that, in 2007, the last year before the recession, the figure of 207,000 net additions to new housing was the highest for 20 years? It is therefore completely nonsensical of him to say that the previous system was not capable of delivering new housing.
Greg Clark
It will be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that I am taking a long-term view. I have said explicitly that the faults that I have diagnosed relate to the long term, but he chooses to cite particular years. Looking at the whole life of the previous Government, from 1998 to 2010, the number of homes built and completed in England was lower than under any previous Government since the war. He is therefore alone in thinking that there is not a problem, and that we do not have a lower level of house building than is appropriate.
Let me outline the consequences of the problem for families. If we persist, over the long term, in building a far lower number of homes than the number of households that are being formed, the inevitable consequence will be poverty. People will have to spend more in rent and have less to spend on their children. It will also be more difficult for people to get on to the housing ladder for the first time. We know that the average age for first-time buyers who do not have assistance from their parents is now getting close to middle age, at nearly 40. We want people to be able to get on; we do not want them to have to make choices.
I received an e-mail from a member of the public, which stated:
“Being part of a couple with a 2-year-old son, living in a flat…we are desperate to buy a family home with a garden, but have little chance.
The social consequences of house prices being so high seem catastrophic to me—both parents being fixated on earning enough to pay for a mortgage, both too”—
the next word might be unparliamentary—
“for much of a social life, every…penny going on the mortgage with nothing left over for holidays that I took for granted as a child. We are currently having to decide whether to abandon our families and friends and go and live…where neither of us has lived before…or to stay in our flat, with our son unable to run around without the people underneath us banging on the ceiling!”
There is a problem for families that we need to address by changing the system and dealing with some of the long-term flaws. That is the purpose of this policy.
Localism Bill
Debate between Greg Clark and Nick Raynsford
Greg Clark
I will make some progress, and then perhaps my hon. Friend can come in again. I know that a lot of Members want to speak.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who made many helpful and constructive suggestions in Committee, has tabled two amendments. We will require the examiner of plans to take oral evidence if people want to submit it, but we will leave him or her to make the judgment about whether that is an attempt to delay the process or reflects a genuine appetite. Similarly, his amendment 12 is unnecessary because the Bill already allows prescribed steps to be taken in the examination of a neighbourhood plan, including the consideration of questions about participation. However, we will carefully consider whether an equalities impact assessment is appropriate.
On heritage issues, our amendments correct a misdrafting that seemed to put in doubt the protection that conservation areas and listed buildings receive in the neighbourhood planning process. That was never our intention. Happily, working with the heritage groups, we have been able to agree a set of measures that address that problem.
I wish to say a little about town centres, because I know that an amendment on the subject has been tabled. Policy on town centres has always been part of national planning policy, and I believe that is right. However, as I have done on the subject of sustainable development, I wish to signal clearly the importance of having robust policy, including the sequential test that is currently in planning policy statement 4. That will absolutely be in place, and it will be clear in the new national planning policy framework.
The Association of Convenience Stores wants, to its credit, to keep this issue live and in the forefront of our minds. I am happy that it does so, but it need have no concerns. This Government’s attitude to town centres is absolutely clear: they are at the heart of our communities and nothing should be done that would disadvantage them or jeopardise that.
Government new clause 15 deals with local finance matters, which has caused the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and his colleagues some concern in recent days. The proposal makes it clear that local finance matters that are relevant to planning considerations can be taken into account. It does not change the law in any way, and it is not some stealthy way in which to introduce a new basis for planning policy. Everyone knows that section 106 payments that are material in planning matters can be taken into consideration. The new clause reflects the fact that the introduction of the community infrastructure levy, and, potentially, other rebates to the local community, as I like to call them, can be used for planning purposes. It is important to be clear, lest there is any doubt on the part of local authorities, that such rebates, just like under section 106, can be made when they are relevant to planning considerations.
Amendment 369, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), suggests that CIL should be used more widely for housing and other local infrastructure. It is important that planning committees, which are sometimes nervous and conservative about such matters, are reassured that the use of the CIL for appropriate planning purposes is perfectly legitimate and that it can be taken into account in planning decisions.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister implies that there is no change in policy as a result of new clause 15, but may I remind him that until three months ago, his Department’s stance was that financial matters could not be regarded as material considerations? His Department’s response to the consultation on the new homes bonus scheme affirmed that the new homes bonus cannot change the position that financial matters are not to be regarded as material considerations. New clause 15 changes that completely, and changes the presumption that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, which has been in the planning system for years. That is an extremely dangerous move, and I am astonished that the Minister has come to it only after 35 minutes of his speech. He has dealt with a lot of detail, but he has not addressed the fundamental threat that new clause 15 poses to the integrity of the planning system.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured that the measure is not a fundamental threat. Rather, it is an incidental measure for clarification. As he knows, section 106 payments have always been taken into account. There is no change in the policy whatever. He misquotes the response to the consultation on the new homes bonus, which is as valid today as it was when it was published. The response states that
“the new Homes Bonus is not intended to encourage housing development which would otherwise be inappropriate in planning terms”
and that local authorities
“cannot take into account immaterial considerations.”
Therefore, local finance considerations, like any other considerations, should be taken into account only if they are material to the application that is being considered. Let me give an example to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if it is perfectly appropriate for a payment made under a section 106 agreement to be taken into account by the planning authority, it would be perfectly reasonable for the CIL, for example, to be used to provide investment in a road scheme that accommodates a development. If a planning authority considers that to be material, it is perfectly reasonable to take it into account. The measure simply clarifies that if payments other than section 106 payments can be used for matters that are material to the application, it is legitimate to take them into account.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister will have to do better. He should consider whether he is being absolutely open with the House about the significance of the change. The existing presumption is that planning permission cannot be bought and sold, and that financial considerations are not material. He will know that section 106 agreements are negotiated only after planning consent has been granted. There should be no question about that. However, he is clearly muddying the waters—his language implies that—and by making a financial consideration a material consideration, he is undermining the planning system. I urge him to reconsider.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman is disappointed that this is not the cunning plot that he sensed it might be. It is a straightforward clarification, and he needs to accept that it is not what he thought it was. It is a simple and straightforward clarification brought about by the fact that it has been suggested in the press that some of these payments cannot be taken into account. It is important that councils understand that, where it is relevant to the planning matter in hand—but not otherwise—they can continue to take it into account. That is no different from the present situation, and it is important to clarify that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Greg Clark and Nick Raynsford(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
4. What progress has been made in devolving more powers and financial autonomy to local authorities.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
In six months, the coalition Government have ended the ring-fencing of all but two revenue grants, simplified over 90 separate funding streams for local government to fewer than 10, scrapped comprehensive area assessments and abolished 4,700 central targets on local government. The localism Bill will give many more new powers to local councils, including a general power of competence. This Government are reversing decades of top-down control, which has led to Britain being one of most centralised countries on the planet.
Mr Raynsford
The Minister may be aware that, in responding to his Department’s recent paper on proposed changes to social tenancies, Councillor Richard Kemp, leader of the Liberal Democrats in local government, described the proposals as “an irrelevant fantasy” and added:
“No council with any sense of the realities on the ground is going to be interested in this”.
Does the Minister—and, perhaps more interestingly, do his coalition partners—agree?
Greg Clark
The consultation my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has launched has been well received across the sector because it introduces a right, not an obligation, and when we have a homelessness crisis, I think it is right to give registered social landlords more flexibility than they currently have in allocating to homeless tenants.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Greg Clark and Nick Raynsford
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and for the benefit of Members, I am today placing in the Library of the House two items. The first is the documents associated with the south-east regional plan, which consists of 3,000 pages and weighs 2 stone. That has been replaced by the second item, which consists of six pages of guidance weighing 1 oz. If anything encapsulates the difference between this Government’s approach and the previous Government’s approach, it is that we are freeing local authorities from that burden.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the local development plan, by which all planning decisions in an area should be determined, is defined as comprising two elements: the local development framework and the regional spatial strategy, which have equal status. Removing one at a stroke, as the Government propose, leaves most people who think about this subject very fearful that the Government are creating a situation in which the local development plans will be unfit for purpose and there will be litigation and protracted delay, all of which will lead to the halting of necessary development. How do the Government justify that?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman is behind the times. The regional spatial strategies have been revoked: they are not about to be revoked, they are no more, they are dead, they no longer exist, they are ex-strategies. When it comes to spatial planning—[Interruption.] The strategies have been revoked under current legislation. It is entirely possible for progressive local authorities to co-operate, as they are, for example, in Essex, Manchester and Worcestershire, to ensure that cross-border issues are properly dealt with. That is exactly what they are doing.