Lord Greaves
Main Page: Lord Greaves (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Greaves's debates with the Department for Transport
(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have tabled Amendment 153AKA in this group. It requires the local authority to prepare and maintain a retail diversity scheme as part of the local development scheme. It calls for a sequential approach to the development of a hierarchy, putting existing centres first, followed by edge-of-centre locations and then out-of-centre sites. This is very much consistent with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter. I was interested to hear about his Retail Development Bill, which I must confess I have not studied in detail, although it seems that neither has his colleague who is sitting in front of him. Perhaps he has. Maybe I could borrow a copy during the Recess.
The amendment will be familiar in that it is a rerun of what was proposed in the other place. On reflection, we should have deleted the proposed power of direction for the Secretary of State. We have brought it back because it was spoken to warmly by the Minister, Greg Clark, who said:
“Policy on town centres has always been part of national planning policy … 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”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; col. 270.]
It is difficult for us to test that issue because we still do not have the new NPPF, but we live in hope.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which he has not yet spoken to, requires there to be an assessment of,
“the vitality and diversity of the shopping areas”,
and makes it necessary,
“to include appropriate policies to promote the vitality and diversity”.
The noble Lord’s amendment states that there must be a consultation, including with the traders. So far as it goes, we can and will support that amendment, but it is vital that there is clarity on the sequential approach. The existing vitality and diversity of shopping centres can dramatically be undermined by inappropriate out-of-town development.
I should recall that I spent a brief time as a Minister in CLG at the tail end of the previous Government, as well as trying to cope with DWP issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will know, you are allocated planning issues to look at when they come forward, one of which stuck in my mind. There was a proposal for a significant retail development in an area, which would have been fantastic for that area in terms of jobs and the retail offering but would have destroyed three or more shopping centres in close proximity. There is an issue about how the duty to co-operate will work in such situations where there is a retail opportunity in one local planning area, which is substantially in the interests of that area, but could be of real detriment to other areas. We will follow with interest these issues around what the NPPF says and the extent to which that overlays local development plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, referred to the current situation on the high street. It is in a pretty dire state. Some 12,000 shops closed their doors in UK high streets last year, and 85 per cent of people feel less optimistic about the prospects for economic recovery when they see boarded-up shops in their local high street. In the past fortnight, Jane Norman went into administration, Carpetright shut 75 stores, and Habitat put 30 premises outside London into administration. Retailers Homeform, HMV, Comet, Mothercare, JJB Sports and Thorntons have recently been hit. Local Data Company states that 14.6 per cent of retail premises are now vacant. This indicates that approximately 50,000 units are not currently open to business on the UK high street, which shows just how challenging the situation is on the ground.
This matter is particularly relevant at this point for the economy of our country, and demonstrates that we need to do whatever we can through the planning process, as well as through other means, to preserve, protect, encourage and promote development on the high street. That is the purpose of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister will support and accept them.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, I and my noble friend Lord Tope, have tabled Amendment 153AKC, which proposes a new clause, entitled,
“Health and diversity of town centres and high streets”.
Before speaking directly to that amendment, I should first acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Cotter in this area over the years. He has been determined and diligent in pursuing these matters and is to be congratulated on bringing the amendment. It is true to say that the three amendments in the group are all rather different but address the same basic problem. I am sure that if the three of us sat around a table, we might well have been able to come up with an amendment with which we all agreed and which would combine the best of all three amendments.
The amendment that I am proposing is slightly different because, unlike the others, it concentrates not so much on town centres but on town centres and high streets. That is not to say that town centres are not important—they are vital—but the shopping streets that we are talking about are not just in town centres. My amendment, which internally we are calling the “Cambridge amendment”, comes from campaigners in a part of Cambridge called Mill Road—a shopping street that is not part of the town centre but is a district shopping street of great variety that is under threat. It was the suggestion of the campaigners that resulted in us putting this amendment together. It clearly overlaps with the other amendment.
I want to speak to Amendment 153AKC, which relates to Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 about preparation of local development documents. I want to include an extra section in that, saying, first, that the duties in putting together the development documents should include,
“a requirement to assess the vitality and diversity of the shopping areas in the area”.
Secondly, that:
“When preparing local development documents and other local planning documents the local planning authority must consider the results of that assessment and consider whether to include appropriate policies to promote the vitality and diversity of those shopping areas”.
Thirdly, that:
“The local planning authority may prepare a scheme for retail vitality and diversity which may be a local development document or other local planning document”.
The policies that we set out are similar to those in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, but a little different.
The local planning authority may,
“define a network of retail centres in the area … assess the existing character and vitality of those centres … designate the desired retail mix for each of these retail centres … promote sustainability and diversity in the retail mix that is desired in each case”.
In doing this, it must consult with the local community, which includes the traders in each shopping centre, and a shopping area means an area of town centre or high street where the substantial use is retail. So sustainability and diversity, which we are suggesting should be foremost in these policies, means that there is an appropriate balance of independent and multiple traders, of unit sizes, and balances of classes of use.
We are putting the emphasis on what is there now. The Labour Party amendment, if I can put it that way, talks about the importance of maintaining the existing policy of the sequential test. If there is a proposal for a new supermarket, can it be fitted in the town centre, can it be at the edge of the town centre, can it be at the edge of town, or does it have to be in the countryside? It is very important that that is maintained, but it is not the only important thing. If you are having a new supermarket, or even a new relatively small Tesco- or Sainsbury’s-type store, like a Tesco Express, the issue is not just where it is, but the effect it will have on the balance of shopping in its area.
In some areas, it might do more damage if it is in the high street than if it is 10 miles away in the countryside. According to a campaign there, Mill Road in Cambridge is described as having an eclectic range of small, specialist independent retailers; as the most ethnically diverse part of the city; and as Cambridge’s Brick Lane. A Tesco Express opened some time ago to widespread concern, and now a Sainsbury’s express wants to open on the other side of the bridge. The fear is that this will seriously undermine the independent local shops, which are a combination of ordinary food shops and specialist shops. If the food element comes under intense competition, those shops might then become unviable. It is suggested that policy and guidance is changed so that the local planning authority can take much more vigorous action to take these issues into account and, if necessary, turn down planning applications if they are thought to be detrimental to the diversity and vitality of a particular high street, whether in the town centre or elsewhere.
This is not just a Cambridge issue. We all saw on television the remarkable scenes in Bristol, where there were riots at night that apparently were connected with the opening of a similar type of convenience store in a street there. For those who live in relatively small towns, as I do, the vitality of our town centres is a very similar issue. In my own town of Colne, there are a lot of small independent shops, and maintaining that vitality and diversity means that we need the policy handles to be able to resist developments that, even if they are in the town centre and high streets, could be detrimental to their future.
Again, that is a very localist view, because it will put more power in the hands of the local authority and local people. There is no magic answer. Keeping the shopping centre and the high street going requires hard work not just by the traders but by the whole community, but it can be done. There are examples around the country where it is being done, and we need to do what we can to stop that being undermined.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps I might respond because otherwise we will prolong a discussion about something that is not particularly apposite to this group of amendments. I believe that all sides of the Committee have faith in liberal market economies, and one of the effects of liberal market economies is that consumers tend to make their own choices. My noble friend Lady Byford pointed that out. I am really rather sorry that my noble friend Lord True is slightly less enamoured with the market, but I would say to noble Lords that retailing is a highly competitive business. Any noble Lord who has been engaged with retailing in any way will know just how competitive it can be. Indeed, it is changing all the time. The latest development in the area from which I come is not a shop but a shed, where people go to collect their orders that they have placed online.
I am sorry, but we live in rapidly changing times. It is a great challenge to local communities and a great challenge to those who are trusted by election to run local authorities, but the Bill is designed to give local authorities power to set the framework in which I suspect noble Lords will all accept that the market has to operate. I hope that it is possible for noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.
Lord Greaves
I shall certainly not move my amendment when I come to it, but I want to make a slightly different point. My amendment does not in any way suggest that there should not be supermarkets of any size. It suggests that in any particular place there should be an appropriate balance which ought to be determined by local people in the normal processes of discussion and so on. It may well be that it is unreasonable to keep out a small supermarket from a shopping street. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to prevent that shopping street being turned over to three or four such shops, or two or three such shops, which then drive the others out—that is not a matter of competition, it is anti-competition, because it is driving out the people who cannot compete at that level. Obviously, we all agree with the market, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True—the Government need to think a bit more about this.
It is absolutely true that it is a very difficult world out there for retailers, but shopping centres, high streets and town centres can, to a degree, make their own fortune. If there is sufficient campaigning desire locally, as there is at Mill Road in Cambridge, that must in itself be a plus factor in keeping that shopping street going as a diverse street. I will refer yet again to my own town of Colne where, over decades, there have been active groups of local councillors, traders, residents, historians and others interested in the town centre who have formed organisations, campaigned and actually rolled up their sleeves and done things to make Colne an attractive place to be. If you have a shopping centre and a high street which is attractive and somewhere local people are proud of, that gives the traders, who are all part of this, a head start. There are a great many towns the same size as Colne across the north of England which have something like 30 per cent or 40 per cent of their properties boarded up and empty now. I dare not say that Colne is thriving, because every time I say that, the local people—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
May I remind noble Lords that I have responded on behalf of the Government to these amendments and I believe that the noble Lord is reiterating arguments which have been very well laid before the Committee already. We want to get through quite a lot of business and I hope that my noble friend will appreciate my interruption—I hope that I have not annoyed him to the point at which he will press his amendment. Perhaps he will wind up.
Lord Greaves
I shall say one more thing. I apologise if I am going on too long. I invite the noble Lord, who is into flowers, to come to Colne and look at all the flowers in Colne now, done by the wonderful organisation Colne in Bloom as part of the Britain in Bloom system. He would be proud of it and it is the kind of thing that keeps people in the town and encourages people to shop there. I invite him to come to Colne; he would be proud of all the flowers there.
Lord Cotter
I thank the Minister for his responses. I deliberately said, in proposing my amendment, that I did not want to go on too long, because it is a very big issue and we know what pressure we are under on the Bill, so I will try to resist going on too long now. However, I say to the Minister that this is a very big issue. The few of us here this evening, including my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord True, and the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Beecham, have come forward with tangible examples. If the House was full, which I do not expect it to be at this time of night—let us say that it was Question Time and everybody was here—I could guarantee that many people would come forward with many more.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for his support and for his example from Cambridge, which encapsulated what has been happening throughout the country for many years. Other noble Lords came up with other examples. Were we to have had a full debate, the number of examples would have been enormous. I shall resist trying to go on too long. It was good to hear the Minister express awareness of many similar problems throughout the country and talk about the need for healthy town centres. He spoke of the coalition’s commitment to high streets and local shops and its desire to strengthen shopping areas. Although it is above my pay grade, he referred to the national planning framework coming along the line, as if that were something we can hope will help in this particular area.
It has been striking that, while the amendments are quite different, their whole thread expresses the same concern. I shall not go on very much longer, because I realise that we are under pressure. I did not wish this to become a discussion about the benefits or otherwise of market forces—we all approve of market forces, and I do not wish there to be a battle between supermarkets and small shops. However, when one goes down that road, one picks up the fact that, if you get a supermarket in an area, it reduces its prices until such time as it drives other competitors out. I shall not pursue that further save to say that very complicated issues surround market forces, competition and such like. Although I shall seek to withdraw my amendment, the concerns remain. I am sure that the Minister has listened to this debate, and will perhaps have a fresh look at my retail development Bill—which addresses a particular aspect of this matter—but also have regard to the points put forward by my noble friend Lord Greaves, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and many others, which tangibly express a major concern for this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the numbering is getting bizarre but the content of the amendments makes up for it. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. We are now on to the fairly short section of the Bill that deals with local development schemes and Clause 97 about the adoption and withdrawal of development plan documents. The purpose of these amendments is to set local authorities free, once again, to make their own decisions in a considered way, following independent examination by an inspector.
Individual documents make up the local development framework, the local plan, under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—the Act that was going to deliver our new streamlined planning system but has not quite worked out that way. Before then, the local plan was put to inspection—a public inquiry and an examination by an inspector. He or she made recommendations to the local authority and the local authority then had the freedom to accept those recommendations or not, modify them, or accept them in part or whatever they wished to do.
In 2004, the system was changed so the local authority, in effect, has to adopt what the inspector says. If the inspector says it is okay it has to be adopted; if the inspector recommends modifications they have to be accepted exactly as proposed. The local authority can decide not to follow the inspector’s decision but if it does it is back to square 1 and has to produce its plan all over again.
I remember my noble friend Lady Hamwee opposing the changes in 2004 with some eloquence and we can all go back and read her speeches and others from then, so you do not need much more from me. However, there is a principle here—local authorities are elected and they should be responsible for agreeing their own plans. Nobody is objecting to the process of inspection and examination and most authorities in the past adopted most of what the independent inspector proposed, but they did not have to and could make up their own minds.
There was a promise, which I thought the coalition Government were going to deliver, of freeing local planning authorities to make up their own minds once again. However, what we have in front of us in this Bill is a very weak relaxation of restrictions, which does not fundamentally change the position. Under the Bill, local authorities can make additional modifications to those proposed by the independent examiner, but only if they do not make material changes to the policies in the plan. In other words, they can tidy up a few loose ends but that is about that. The purpose of these amendments is, essentially, to remove Sections 21 and 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in order to free local authorities to make up their own mind. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing these amendments. I understand his purpose, but we are not minded to accept them. We are concerned particularly about the first two amendments, Amendments 148ZZZZBB and 148ZZZZBC, because they would reintroduce regulatory bureaucracy by restricting councils from making small text edits, such as correcting mistakes, page numbers and notation, before adopting their development plan documents. We do not see that that can possibly be justified.
If noble Lords are concerned that councils are being given powers to adopt or change policies without proper public debate, I reassure them that this is not the case. The Bill makes sure that councillors can adopt plans only when they are considered suitable by the inspector. We trust councillors to prepare plans that reflect local needs and bring forward sustainable economic growth.
Amendment 148ZZZZBD seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s existing powers to direct withdrawal of a council’s local plans during examination. We disagree with my noble friend on this issue, and we think that this is bottom-up. We have introduced Clause 97(5) to retain the existing backstop power in exceptional circumstances only, alongside our proposals in Clause 97(4), which will allow councils to withdraw their plans at any time before adoption. We believe that that is the right approach.
Amendments 148ZZZZBE, 148ZZZZBF and 148ZZZZBG collectively seek to remove sections from the 2004 planning Act that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in the preparation of local plans. These are existing long-standing measures that have not been used by this Government. In a practical sense, the powers are simply existing safeguards, which a future Government may consider it appropriate to use in the highly exceptional circumstance when a council is unwilling or unable to develop plans for their area. It acts as a useful reminder for local communities that their own councils should plan properly on their behalf and that they can hold them to account. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I did not think I would get anywhere, but it is still very disappointing. The Minister said that the Government trust local councils to produce plans that will produce sustainable development, and so on. The truth of the matter is that no Government nowadays trust local councils at all unless they do what the Government or the inspector want, or follow the detailed rules and regulations. It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is clearly going to continue for some time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 148ZZZBB, I will also speak to the other amendments in my name, namely 148ZZZBC, 148ZZZBD and 148ZZBAA. I will comment on the other amendments in this group after they have been spoken to.
Amendments 148ZZZBB, 148ZZZBC and 148ZZZBD deal with the community infrastructure levy and its consequences for the provision of affordable housing. The amendments, which were prompted by the National Housing Federation, seek to ensure, first, that the need for affordable housing is taken into account when setting the CIL and, secondly, that the CIL charging schedules contain a provision that allows for the CIL to be waived if securing the entire amount would prejudice the provision of affordable housing.
The NHF says that the community infrastructure levy will be in most cases mandatory on new developments. With 40 per cent of social housing having traditionally been delivered through Section 106 agreements, it is vital that the CIL is set at a level that does not prejudice the delivery of levels of affordable housing in accordance with local plan policy. It is also important that, where the combination of the CIL and affordable housing makes development not viable, there is a clear mechanism that allows the CIL to be waived in whole or in part so that levels of affordable housing do not fall automatically.
In the debate in the other place, all parties agreed that the CIL should not prejudice the provision of affordable housing. The Minister was explicit about this and said that the present arrangements in the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL regulations offered sufficient protection, though he did commit to return to the issue. The Minister suggested that the requirement in Section 211 of the 2008 Act to have regard to the economic viability of development meant that proper scrutiny would be given to the effect on affordable housing.
Regulation 14, which gives practical effect to Section 211, requires a balance to be drawn between the desirability of securing funding from the CIL and the effect on the economic viability of development across the area. However, this type of balancing exercise does not protect affordable housing and it cannot do so if, as is often the case, there is no clear numerical target for additional affordable housing units. It would be far better to legislate to make the position explicit that the CIL is not meant to lead to a reduction in levels of affordable housing or land for affordable housing. There is no evidence that affordable housing requirements have genuinely been taken into account in the emerging CIL charging schedules to date.
The document Community Infrastructure Levy—An Overview, which was published by DCLG in May of this year, appears to make two things clear. First, it states:
“The regulations rule out the application of the levy for providing affordable housing”.
In relation to planning obligations, the document says:
“The levy is intended to provide infrastructure to support the development of an area rather than to make individual planning applications acceptable in planning terms. As a result, there may still be some site specific impact mitigation requirements without which a development should not be granted planning permission. Some of these needs may be provided for through the levy but others may not, particularly if they are very local in their impact. Therefore, the Government considers there is still a legitimate role for development specific planning obligations to enable a local planning authority to be confident that the specific consequences of development can be mitigated”.
However, the document then goes on to say in a sense that the planning obligations proposals had been drawn tightly by circular 5/05 and that is now enshrined on a statutory basis in the regulations.
Therefore, I have a fundamental question for the Minister. Given that the CIL cannot be used for affordable housing and the Section 106 agreements cause its focus to be narrowed, what will happen to the vital source of funding for affordable housing that came from the Section 106 stream? I stress that this is not a trick question. There is a genuine inquiry here; I am trying to understand how this should work and what the Government’s intentions are. Funding generally for affordable housing has been heavily restricted. I know that the Government are looking at so-called affordable rents or intermediate rents as a means of generating resources for affordable housing. However, if that Section 106 stream is to be reduced, and potentially overshadowed by the CIL, how will that all work? How will it help the delivery of affordable housing? I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group, which I shall try to rattle through as quickly as possible. I start by saying that we support the broad thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said.
Amendment 148ZZBBB is a kite-flying amendment that would include building improvement and renovation of housing. The noble Lord has spoken more eloquently than I would have done, so I shall say no more about that. However, this is a very serious problem with the new system.
Amendments 148ZZBBA and 148ZZCA, are very similar to amendments that were tabled in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend Simon Hughes. He asked us to table them again here, since he was given a fairly sympathetic response by the Minister when he talked to him about the amendments—they were tabled in the Commons but they were not debated there. They would widen the possible use of the CIL. Amendment 148ZZBBA leaves out the words “providing infrastructure to support” and inserts the word “supporting”. The proposed provision refers to the development of an area. In other words, the amendment would allow the CIL to be spent on projects that support the development of an area, and not just what might be narrowly defined as infrastructure. The amendment would amend Section 205 of the Planning Act 2008.
Amendment 148ZZCA makes a similar amendment to Section 216 of that Act, which at the moment—ignoring the preamble—reads:
“CIL regulations must require the authority that charges CIL to apply it, or cause it to be applied, to funding infrastructure”.
Amendment 148ZZCA would add “or any other matter”. That means that CIL could be used to fund things that are desirable in the area but not necessarily described as infrastructure.
Many areas, particularly big cities, do not necessarily require extra investment in their infrastructure, but that does not mean that local residents are not inconvenienced by development. They might be inconvenienced by noise, dirt or dust, or there may be nuisance from the operation of the development. A supermarket could have people coming in and out all the time, and making noise around closing time. This could be mitigated by investment in, for example, double glazing. However, this is not currently allowed under the legislation; it is not regarded as infrastructure. In reality, councillors with the opportunity of getting CIL will always levy it and will always find ways of spending it. However, they will not necessarily spend it on the best and most useful thing that they could spend it on if they have to stay within the narrow definition of infrastructure.
Amendments 148ZZBBC and 148ZZCC just propose replacing “ongoing” with “continuous”. I regard “ongoing” as being an unpleasant American word that came in probably several decades ago—I do not know—but the English word is, in my view, “continuous”, which would be better and more elegant.
Amendment 148ZZCD refers to regulation-making powers in the Bill that refer to passing CIL,
“to a person other than that authority”.
I am not trying to remove that provision, and I should say that this is a probing amendment to find out what that phrase means and who these other persons might be that the authority would or might have to pass the CIL to.
Amendment 148ZZBAZA relates to the same argument about authorities being able to make up their own minds after a charging scheme has been examined by an examiner and to obtaining their recommendations. It is the same argument that was made two groups ago, and I will not say any more about it. I do not imagine that the Government will agree with me about that, but it is important. The next amendment in the group is about the same matter, so I shall not speak to it any further.
Finally, I speak to Amendment 148ZZZBE. On page 77 of the Bill, proposed new subsection (7A) to Section 211 states:
“A charging authority must use appropriate available evidence to inform the charging authority’s preparation of a charging schedule”.
That seems to be garbage. Why does that have to be in legislation? There are then eight indications of what CIL regulations may make provision for. I shall not read them all out, but only a couple of them to provide a flavour, including,
“provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not appropriate”,
and,
“provision as to how evidence is, and as to how evidence is not, to be used”.
They are all like this. Finally there is,
“provision as to how the use of evidence is to inform the preparation of a charging schedule”.
They are the kind of quite extraordinary provisions that ought not to be in legislation.
It is insulting that local authorities cannot make sensible decisions on their own without being given such minute and detailed instructions on exactly what to do. If the Government are to respond to all the criticisms made in this Committee about the detailed regulations that are being imposed, I hope that they might look at this provision as being at best redundant and at worst quite ridiculous.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 148ZZCBA. It proposes to remove subsection (3)(b) of Clause 100, not, as my noble friend might think, in protest at the word “ongoing”, although it is an entirely unnecessary word. Perhaps the clause should refer only to future costs. What costs would be in or out, or out or in, because of “ongoing” being in the clause? The word is totally unnecessary. However, I want to mention this matter because it is a breach in the whole principle of CIL, which should deal with the infrastructure costs that are caused, or need to be contributed to, as a result of the proposed development.
Once you start to allow consideration of future costs, you will allow the whole CIL to be diverted to revenue and you will not get the infrastructure that you are supposed to get, and you will create a large deficit in the provision of infrastructure, because cash-strapped local councils will just hang on as long as they can without building the infrastructure. They will allow the roads to become more crowded and the schools to become fuller until the local authorities have to do something, and spend the CIL money on current costs. This is the sort of budgeting for which we criticised the previous Administration. I am very surprised that we are contemplating it ourselves.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for the fairly positive response to some of the amendments I moved. I look forward to further discussions, and I hope that the Government will have completed their reflection by the time we get to Report.
The specific question I want to ask is on the payment to other persons. The Minister twice referred to the intention of paying over a proportion of the levy to parish town councils and community councils in Wales. Is it the intention that it would only be to parish and town councils, and to no other persons? If so, that would mean that in areas without parish and town councils no levy would be passed over to the community, which is a minority of the land in the country, but a clear majority of the people who live in England who do not have town and parish councils. Can the Minister also give us an indication of the proportion of CIL which the Government are thinking of requiring to be passed to parish and town councils?