Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

This is the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, but it could more accurately be described as the English local government (planning change) (miscellaneous orders) Bill with some additional provision for energy, which is important, and, in clause 23, what the Government euphemistically call “economic measures” but which appear mainly to be another attack on employee rights. It certainly is not a Bill for growth in any way, shape or form. If the Secretary of State really wanted the factories, offices and infrastructure he spoke of in his introduction, instead of this mishmash of a Bill, the Chancellor would be reintroducing the industrial buildings allowance to provide a real incentive for the supply-side investment that will bring the necessary economic enlargement.

The Bill is a bit of a guddle. Paragraphs 11 to 23 in the explanatory notes describe those bits that are executively devolved, fully devolved and reserved, and those elements, mainly in clauses 17 and 18, that require a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament. I shall speak about the reserved and devolved parts later. Given that much of the Bill relates to this matter, however, I want to start, unusually, by looking at the changes proposed to the English planning system, mainly to determine the Government’s thinking.

The Government are suggesting the option to make planning applications directly to the Secretary of State when the local planning authority is designated to be performing poorly. On the other hand, the Scottish Government are concentrating on improving planning authority and other stakeholder performance by linking fees to performance, and are committed to performance across the entire planning service. They have worked with local government agencies and the private sector to introduce a new planning performance framework that carries a firm commitment to continuous improvement.

The Scottish Government have also drawn a clear link between performance and planning fee levels. Authorities that do not improve will have their fees reduced, and the Scottish Government are pursuing the legislative powers to do that. They already have a system that allows the applicant to appeal on non-determination of a planning application. I ask the Minister, therefore, why the UK Government have chosen to allow applications to be made directly to the Secretary of State, rather than linking performance to the fees demanded by local authorities or LPAs, in order to improve poorly performing councils.

The Bill suggests broadening powers to award costs at planning appeals. The Scottish Government have not considered that change necessary in Scotland, and instead have concentrated on streamlining the appeals process in an effort to reduce costs. In 2009, they streamlined the appeals process even further precisely to prevent developments from becoming bogged down in lengthy and expensive inquiries. Why, then, have the Government chosen to broaden the powers to award costs, rather than to take different steps to streamline the appeals process, which is a sensible thing to do in any circumstances?

Under the Bill, the Government have also proposed limiting the power of LPAs to require supporting information for planning applications. In England, LPAs can specify the content of applications, but provisions in the Bill attempt to limit that. In Scotland, the Government specify the content of applications in national regulations. Under clause 4, the UK Government plan to go about this by amending the primary legislative framework governing what local authorities can ask for in support of a planning application so that such requests are reasonable and relate to matters likely to be material planning considerations.

The regulations in Scotland specify what accompanies an initial application and allow additional information to be requested when the planning authority considers it necessary to determine the application. That might well be in response to information required by statutory consultees. The emphasis on pre-application discussion between applicants, planning authorities and statutory consultees to identify information requirements in advance seems to make sense. Will the Minister explain, therefore, why the UK Government have chosen to amend primary legislation to limit information, rather than going down the route of national regulations, which would allow information to be required over and above a de minimis level, where it is necessary to determine an application?

The Bill also allows for the reconsideration of economically unviable section 106 affordable housing obligations, with the sensible objective of freeing up stalled housing sites. In Scotland, we have the power to modify or discharge section 75 planning obligations—the direct equivalent of section 106 agreements—whether or not they relate to affordable housing. Whether in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, however, the problem with freeing up stalled affordable housing sites has little to do with the planning system, and far more to do with the unavailability to developers, including housing associations, of the lending required to start or complete sites. Would Government time not have been more constructively spent trying to free up cash from the banks and lenders to allow those developments to proceed? I believe, and I hope the Minister can confirm, that the Scottish Government already have the powers to modify or discharge planning obligations equivalent to those under section 106, and I hope he can confirm that nothing in the Bill would change that.

On the major infrastructure changes—non-planning changes—clauses 17 and 18 relate to the ability of the Secretary of State to vary consents for generating stations granted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, and therefore to avoid the need for the full panoply of consent application requirements to apply for changes in a proposal. The existing consent power is executively devolved and the related power under planning legislation for Ministers to direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for any development that receives consent under a section 36 order. That removes the need for separate planning application and was devolved in the Scotland Act 1998. It therefore makes sense that the Bill should include provision for Scotland, although because of its devolved nature, the provision clearly needs to be ratified by the Scottish Parliament.

Clause 15, however, repeals section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 which requires developers or operators to give written notice to the Secretary of State for proposals to establish or convert electricity generating stations to be fuelled by gas or by petrol. An initial look would suggest that this is a minor removal of red tape where a section 36 consent under the Electricity Act would be required in any event. I wonder whether the Secretary of State did not rather overstate the ripping-up of the red tape to which he referred in his opening remarks.

There is also the opportunity here to correct the anomaly in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 where, when granting consent for offshore wind farms, Ministers cannot at the same time direct that planning permission for onshore ancillary development be granted. A joined-up approach to that makes sense but because, as I said, many of these things are executively or fully devolved, that will also require a legislative consent motion from Scotland.

There are only two economic measures in the Bill. One is clause 22 which postpones the next non-domestic rating revaluation from 2015 to 2017. The argument is that that provides certain businesses with increased certainty about their business rates bill and allows them to focus on running their businesses. At face value that is sensible, and I am sure that Scottish Ministers will take their own decision on the equivalent revaluation postponement or not in good time.

Clause 23 is the key to the Bill. It represents another erosion of employee rights. I am all in favour of employee share schemes. Such an incentive is good. Employees owning a part of the business that they work for makes sense. At no time ever have I thought that that should be purchased at the cost of the removal of the basic rights that everybody else takes for granted, and I am deeply concerned about that. Even the briefest look at the explanatory notes tells us that in return for this new employment status, employees will have to forgo certain unfair dismissal rights, meaning that in certain circumstances they can be dismissed in a way that would now be unfair. That seems utterly ridiculous.

Employees will forgo statutory redundancy pay, on the off-chance that the shares that they have been awarded may have some value—any value—or, indeed, any market at all for them. That raises a serious question. Should there not be an open market, do the Government intend that the business buy that stock back, which might put the employer in an invidious position at that point? In order to become an employee owner, certain rights to flexible working will be forgone. As we heard earlier, businesses—we all know them—want their employees on occasion to be able to work flexibly. This is an important drive forward, and the provision is a huge reversal of that trend.

Employees will also have to forgo certain rights to request study and training. The next time a Conservative or a Liberal bemoans skills shortages in a company, sector or geographic area, we should remind the governing parties that they are asking people, in return for being an employee owner, to give up the right to request study and training leave—precisely the opportunities that people need to get the skills that their employers require now and in the future.

Giving up the right to go back to work early after maternity or adoption leave is incredible. We all understand that businesses have costs when they put interns or temps in when someone is away on maternity or adoption leave. I have never had a single employer say to me, “I don’t want my employee who is off on maternity leave to come back earlier.” Normally employers are desperate to get back their experienced staff, so the idea that the ability to become an employee owner will mean having to forgo the ability even to request coming back early is ridiculous.

I hope the Minister can answer the technical questions that I posed. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.