Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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