Localism Bill

Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2011.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

We will now hear oral evidence from the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. We have Jessica Bauly from the CBI, Gareth Elliott from the BCC and Roger Culcheth from the FSB. You do not need to introduce yourselves—I have done that for you—but you may like to highlight, in no more than a minute, just one or two headlines that you would like to get across to members of the Committee. We will start with Jessica Bauly.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

Okay. I will call a halt there. You will have plenty of opportunities to elaborate on that in your answers to questions.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

Thank you for your introductions. There were some hints there to Members of things that you want to be asked about. Who would like to set the ball rolling? Barbara Keeley.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

You talk about the importance of infrastructure and needing a robust planning system. The Bill includes a duty to co-operate. Do you think that that duty is sufficiently strong to bring about the level of strategic planning needed for the growth that you have talked about? Will it be effective? Is it enough, or are you looking for something else?

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

So you would like to see something that is larger than local planning.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

The general power of competence will allow councils to act in the same way as an individual and therefore to contract more openly and widely in the business community. What are the opportunities for private industry to benefit from that and to pick up contracts and outsourcing from local government?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

May I follow that up briefly? The new transparency laws will allow people to see where money is being spent and where the contracts are, and private business will have the opportunity to challenge and tender for that kind of business, so do you see an opportunity for local councils not just to do something different and re-engineer, but to be more cost-effective for local taxpayers?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

My question is mainly for the CBI, but also for the rest of the panel. A few days ago, Richard Lambert referred to the Government’s lack of vision on a strategy for growth, particularly in relation to the productive sector. He singled out their localism plans, saying that they have

“thrown an extra level of uncertainty into the planning system and led to the poorly-handled introduction of the new local enterprise partnerships.”

I have two questions that follow on from that. First, you said that you believed that reference should be made in the Bill to LEPs. Will you expand on what you mean by that? Secondly, what is do you mean by

“uncertainty into the planning system”?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

My apologies for interrupting. You are very clear in what you have said. I have another related question. You have been very clear about infrastructure, including national infrastructure, and the LEPs. However, do you have any concerns about what the Bill’s proposals for the neighbourhood plans might mean in terms of impeding development, be that housing or commercial?

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

All three of you said in your introductory remarks that you wanted to see more reference to business in the Bill. There is a whole part of the Bill about business rates that raises the threshold for having a business rate supplement, that gives local authorities the power to introduce discretionary relief schemes for businesses in their area, that gives the Secretary of State the power to make a new small business relief scheme and that also gives the power to cancel certain backdated non-domestic rates. What do you think of that section of the Bill, which is all about business?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

You have expressed your anxieties about the impact of changes in the planning system, particularly in relation to infrastructure. Can I ask you specifically about the housing market? We heard two days ago from the chief executive of Taylor Wimpey that he estimated that recovery from the recession would be slow and that the new planning changes might add one or two years to the length of time it would take to get back to the 2007 output of housing. In fact, he estimated, given the changes, that it would probably be seven or eight years before housing output got back to 2007 levels. Will you give us your view about what the impact of that is likely to be, not just on the housing sector but on business as a whole? Do you, to come back to Richard Lambert’s comments earlier in the week, feel that this is an area where growth, or the lack of growth, could have a serious adverse impact on the economy?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

And a 3.3% shrinkage in construction.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

This is directed more to Mr Culcheth than the other witnesses. You have referred to the possibility of getting better protection for high streets and market town retail areas. Clearly the existing planning system has failed to do that. What do you see as the opportunities to secure that under the new arrangements, and what would you be looking for?

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

Do you have any concerns about assets of community value, and specifically about the moratorium and the impact that that could have on business?

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

May I come back on that? Would you envisage legal challenges from businesses that felt that this is an unreasonable constraint on their ability to sell what is, in effect, their own property?

Eric Ollerenshaw (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood)

May I go back to the CBI representative? You talked about the geographical boundaries you need, and in the written submission I think you talked about a minimum geographical level. I assume that that is a regional level.

Eric Ollerenshaw (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood)

Would you accept though, that in the old system the problem with the boundaries was that some of us represent areas that are on the boundaries? In my area, business in Lancaster looks partly to central Lancashire but also partly to Cumbria. The whole of east Lancs very often has much more in common with west Yorkshire, and the old boundaries put strictures in place that defeated any cross-partnership. Perhaps the duty to co-operate introduces a bit more flexibility into the system.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

Can we take a rain check? I know that Stephen Gilbert and one or two other colleagues were trying to catch my eye.

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

The third party right of appeal is not in the Bill, but it was in both Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. Presumably, as people are looking for a quick and speedy planning process, you are pleased that it is not there.

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

May I pursue that slightly? If an application is turned down by a local authority, do you think that to level the playing field, the right of appeal that exists at the moment, which businesses or developers sometimes use, should be removed? Why should developers have a right of appeal if the community does not?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am hearing quite a lot of concern and apprehension about the direction in which the Bill is going. If you could make two changes that would give greater certainty to your members, what would they be?

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

I am hearing very strongly made points about infrastructure from you this morning and, of course, housing is a key part of that. Would you accept that, during the past decade, almost counter-intuitively, the top-down regional approach to both planning and the raising of business rates, and the redistribution of business rates through the Treasury in Whitehall, has not delivered on infrastructure projects and on house building, which is at the lowest levels since the 1920s? Although a more localised system might sound counter-intuitive, it might deliver what business needs.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

If I may interject, market forces over the past decade, or the past couple of years?

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

I want to go back to something that you said in response to Mr Ollerenshaw’s question about the need for strategic planning guidance. I am a little bit confused. You were talking about movable, although not necessarily regional, areas and how they would work if you had one project in one strategic kind of planning and another in another. I am a bit confused about how they would be strategic if they were movable. Can you expand a little on what you meant?

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

How would you see that being enforced if there is not a structure?

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

You have mentioned several times the need for business to have a voice. One suggestion that Mr Elliott has put forward is that there should be business neighbourhood groups. My sense from having been in business in the town in which I was a councillor is that the relationship between the business sector and the local authority tended to consist largely of paying rates and fearing a visit from a compliance officer, such as for health and safety. If business was really lucky, it was consulted on a budget that had already largely been set. Now, hopefully, we have a few more points of contact, but how do we accelerate the cultural change needed, so that those points of contact are not still seen as boxes to tick by local authority officers, and so that the business sector and the local authority can have a meaningful relationship where that voice is heard?

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

May I ask a supplementary? I still want to probe further. I understand that business people are busy, but do you think there would be an appetite for an ongoing engagement with local authorities—a standing group, rather than an occasional group, of business people and retired business people in the local authority structure—so that there could be a continuous voice and a meaningful relationship, rather than simply points of contact during the year? With respect, most people who work in local authorities have not worked in the business environment and vice versa. We need to break down that silo.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

Another quick supplementary, if I may. Perhaps we need someone to champion good practice in certain local authorities. From my experience, that is not happening in all authorities—if I may, I also put that to the Ministers.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

That was more of a comment, and as we will have an opportunity to debate the Bill in the 20 sittings yet to come, I will not ask our interviewees to comment.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Coming back to the point about the planning system, do you accept that a key weakness is that it is perceived by ordinary people, including many of my constituents, to be remote, not democratically accountable, and something over which they have no control?

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I am asking whether you accept that that has been one of the weaknesses of the planning system as it is currently conveyed? Ordinary people perceive it to be remote and not democratically accountable. Therefore, one of its weaknesses has been that people are resistant to development and to perfectly legitimate initiatives that are in the interests of your members.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Right. Okay.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I am sorry to cut across you, but I am trying to ask whether you accept the principle in the Bill that having a bottom-up planning process is going to lead to more development of the sort that you want. Do you accept that as a principle?

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Can I ask—

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

James, I think that I will interrupt you. We have only a couple of minutes before I said that I would call the Minister, and three other colleagues wish to speak. I do not think that we will get everyone in, but I did promise to let in Nick Raynsford.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I just want to follow up Jessica Bauly’s comment that in the case of major infrastructure decisions, she would want the Secretary of State’s time frame to be no more than three months. In your experience, has any decision reserved by the Secretary of State on a major infrastructure project been resolved within that period of time? If not—I do not know of any—is that to do with concern about the risk of judicial review because of the scale of the schemes and the interests involved, particularly if it involves a variation from the inspector’s recommendation, rather than dilatoriness on the part of Ministers?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I was thinking about the Secretary of State’s involvement in the previous system. Under the IPC, the Secretary of State does not have a decision-making role at the end of the process. Under the previous system, do you know of any case—I certainly do not— where the Secretary of State reached a decision on a major infrastructure scheme within three months? I am not asking for an instant answer now.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

I am grateful to two colleagues for withdrawing their questions.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I think that every member of the Committee would recognise the importance of powering growth in terms of the reforms that are being made, and planning is key to that. Do the witnesses think that the current planning system is good enough?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

And beyond the IPC?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

Mr Culcheth, can you answer in terms of the current system in the high streets that you mentioned?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

Have you noticed, as I think some MPs have, a rise in the degree of antagonism and difficulty in getting planning applications through locally?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

Indeed, and that is the point that we will be grappling with and debating in the weeks ahead. Previous witnesses have said that there are fundamental problems. Some of your members told us yesterday that the sense of imposition creates a reaction from communities and that there is too little in it for communities. Any change obviously will create uncertainty, so I think the challenge for the Committee is to make sure that the change that we are moving to, which inevitably involves a bit of uncertainty, will get us on to the right track at the end. I am certain that we could have gone on for a bit longer, but we are out of time.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

We have 30 seconds for you to comment, if you choose.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

I am afraid that brings us to the end of our allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the three of you for an interesting and illuminating sitting. Thank you for submitting written evidence and coming to talk to us about the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good afternoon and welcome, everyone. I do not know whether any of our witnesses have given evidence to a Committee of this type before, but Committee members fully understand that you may not be entirely experienced in these matters. They are not going to pick arguments with you; they are simply going to take evidence from your good selves. Speaking on behalf of the Committee, I very much hope that our witnesses enjoy the session, which must finish by 1.15 pm at the latest. We will hear oral evidence from Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Country Land and Business Association and Action with Communities in Rural England. I will now ask our witnesses to introduce themselves in turn and just make a short statement on how you see the Bill. We will start with Mr Marsh.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

The briefings that have been submitted to us voice a strong concern about the absence of links between strategic planning and the neighbourhood planning aspects of the Bill. Will the witnesses talk about that and address in particular whether they think that the duty to co-operate is sufficiently strong and will achieve that? If not, what else should we include in the Bill to give us that link to necessary strategic planning?

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

This is a question for Mr Spiers. You said that you broadly welcomed the idea of neighbourhood plans, but then you said that the way they were characterised in the Bill was simplistic. Can you clarify what you meant by that?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

It is common ground that the planning system should be reformed to facilitate the greater involvement of local people, but are you satisfied that under in the Bill as it stands neighbourhood forums will be sufficiently representative and legitimate? It is an issue of democratic accountability.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

A point well made, but following on from that, it is important, is it not, that all communities have an equal opportunity to access the potential under the proposed planning system? With the proposed changes to Planning Aid and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, are you concerned that there might not be that necessary equality of opportunity?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I will come back to that later. Thank you.

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

Were you surprised that third party rights of appeal were not included in the Bill? Should we be concerned that they were not?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We have only 20 minutes left, and many colleagues want to ask questions, so we will have to speed this up a bit.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I want to ask Mr Worsley about the community assets issue, which he highlighted as a concern. Could he amplify the scope for abuse and the problems associated with that particular feature?

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

Mr Worsley, you said that you were concerned about how the Bill will impact on rural businesses. Apart from issues that you have highlighted already, are there others that cause you concern? How could rural businesses have a greater voice?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Do you think the Bill would be improved by the inclusion of a presumption in favour of sustainable development?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Do you want to have a go at doing that?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

At the risk of pitting Mr Spiers and Mr Worsley against each other—

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

I just want to revisit the issues around community assets. It seems to me that the community asset clause, from Mr Spiers’ point of view, can effectively be proactive around what would otherwise be a third party right of appeal, in that the community can act early, moving something forward. This question is particularly for Mr Worsley. There is protection, if you like, for landowners in clauses 74 and 76, and the compensation referred to in clause 82 is not dissimilar to a compulsory purchase order. Bearing that in mind, what, without affecting a community’s ability to have control of its environment, which is what localism is really about, would give landowners the certainty and security that they are looking for, so that they still feel part of this, and not victimised in the way that you implied?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Ms Brown, one of the Ministers wanted to clarify something with regard to a point that you made.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

For those higher-level assets, would you favour the Scottish system of having compulsory purchase rights?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

May I ask Simon and Shaun the same thing? Is the Scottish system of compulsion something that they prefer?

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

May I take you back to the failure to put in the Bill a code for sustainable development? Our understanding—you may well have already had discussions with officials and others on this—is that this will appear in the national planning policy framework. It is very difficult for us to legislate in a number of areas covered by the Bill without understanding what that interpretation of sustainable development will be. Do you share those concerns? In particular, Mr Spiers, can you tell us again, absolutely clearly, what you would like to see in that code for sustainable development?

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Mr Worsley talked with some enthusiasm earlier about his village plan, but is there any concern about what constitutes a neighbourhood in a rural setting for planning purposes? In my local authority in Gateshead, in the north-east of England, we have divided the borough into 48 or 49 neighbourhoods, which can have anything from 3,000 to 5,000 people. In north Yorkshire, that would probably cover the whole of Swaledale. Would that be viewed as a neighbourhood, from that perspective?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I hate to chop everyone off, but we have very little time left. One final question from the Minister.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Perhaps I can reassure you that the Government intend that neighbourhood plans, like local plans, will have to be consistent with national policy. If the national policy includes a reference to sustainable development, as it will, that will be in them as well.

We talked about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is in current policy. In that regard, current policy is not defined in primary legislation, but I think that you felt, Mr Spiers, that it had been successful. Is there not a danger that if you try to define a presumption in primary legislation, you have the difficulty of amending it in the light of changed circumstances or technological and scientific knowledge? You therefore create needless rigidity, which is why it is better to define a presumption either in guidance or in some form of secondary legislation.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

You are not saying you are against growth as such, though, are you?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am afraid that we have to end the session there, so on behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for the time they have spent with us this afternoon. We appreciated hearing you gently falling out among yourselves.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

May I welcome our witnesses? You were probably in the room earlier when I said that the Committee wants you to relax and enjoy this session, because our task is just to gather evidence from our witnesses. Would you kindly introduce yourselves one at a time and briefly share with the Committee your views on the Bill, starting with Ms Elliott?

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

We have a good set of issues to start with. Perhaps the witnesses can enlarge on some things they have said, particularly the role of councils and councillors, which is interesting, and about getting closer to communities. Dr Ellis says that the Bill only does 10% of the job, that we have to make neighbourhood planning work, and that there are questions about urban areas.

I am sure that, across the room, we share the desire to empower communities to take on this role. However, the context for a lot of authorities, which is that they are facing 27% of cuts over the next year, has not been raised much this week. I wonder if you could perhaps comment on the reality of where that resource will come from in councils for all these new people who will get out there and empower communities. My local council is struggling to find £47 million of cuts so, in reality, where will that resource come from? If it is a new function and there is a lot of work to be done, as Dr Ellis says, how will that happen?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

There are only 20 minutes left and a lot of colleagues want to ask questions, so can we speed up the answers please? It is not necessary to get four responses to each question.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

On the point about strategic planning, you talked about your concerns about the duty to co-operate. Is not one of the lessons of history that if central Government decide that they want to impose duties that have a lot of elements, they can produce the opposite behaviour from the one you are trying to solve? What do you think about that?

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Do you think that that will produce more effective strategic planning?

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

In earlier sessions, we heard concerns about the importance of strategic planning, including with regard to housing and, as Dr Ellis has just mentioned, the whole climate change agenda. The house builders made it clear that the proposals in the Bill will not deliver housing in the numbers needed or the places expected. They expected more greenfield, low-density development to arise.

The reasons that they gave were that they felt confusion over the primacy within the Bill of the different tiers of planning. They felt that the transition period between the existing system and any potential new system would bring delay and problems. They also had concerns about how the neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood forums fitted in.

The RICS briefing says that

“Neighbourhood plans must ensure that the Mayor’s housing targets are delivered”,

but that is not exactly localist—it flags up the conflict between the strategic and the local. I wonder whether the witnesses feel that the planning proposals will help to deliver on housing need.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

With regard to house building numbers, do you think that greater community involvement will increase the level of housing supply?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

May I ask Mr Warner to say a little more about the RICS briefing? Regarding housing, it highlighted concerns that measures in the Bill changing local authorities’ duties on homelessness

“coupled with the changes to housing benefit may increase levels of homelessness”

and could

“lead to instability in the housing market and the private rented sector.”

Could you say a little more about those concerns?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

But you must have some thoughts about how to avoid those problems.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

So when you say “stay as we are”, does that mean to stay as we are in relation to local authority homelessness duties, or stay as we are in relation to housing benefit?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

So not to introduce the changes that are proposed in the Bill.

David Ward (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East)

My old ward included at least three urban villages, which were separated by fields 50 or 60 years ago. The easy way to have a fight, if you want one, is to go into any pub and try to get people to decide where one village finishes and the next starts. Dr Ellis mentioned the issue of “easy in rural areas; a bit more difficult in urban areas.” There is just that issue of the boundaries in the urban areas.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Earlier, Dr Ellis referred to the two principles historically at the heart of the planning system—the importance of fairness and effectiveness. On effectiveness, you have made it clear that we need to address in Committee the issue of the duty to co-operate, with particular regard to strategic planning. That point is well taken.

On the issue of fairness, however, it is important that any system works not just for the powerful, but for the powerless. You have identified significant issues of legitimacy and accountability. Indeed, Mr Tapper and Mr Warner, you made the point about the importance of elected representatives being able to mediate between competing interests. Moreover, a crucial point was made earlier in relation to capacity—for example, there is Planning Aid and the build environment support that has, historically, been very important. Do you share the fear expressed by many that, unless those issues are addressed properly, the outcome in five and 10 years’ time will be a new system that institutionalises inequality?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Three colleagues still want to ask questions.

Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)

Most of my question has been answered, but I want to press Mr Tapper a little further on co-operation between local authorities. You said that you had various ideas for how that could work in practice. Obviously, clause 90 includes a duty for them to co-operate, but how would you like to see that taken further? How would you like it to be changed?

Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)

Could that be achieved through guidance?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have to interrupt now, because we have three questions and four minutes left.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Very briefly, in Committee, we will pursue the issue of the purpose of planning, and whether that should perhaps be in the Bill, but I want to come back to the interesting and legitimate point that Mr Warner just made about the duty of local authorities, in your words, to educate. Are you concerned about the Bill’s removal of the duty on authorities to promote democracy?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The Government are going in the opposite direction, are they not?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Removing that obligation—the duty to promote democracy?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have to interrupt. There are still two questions.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Given that you have already acknowledged that the plan-making process needs to be resourced, do you see that resource in the form of direct cash locally, or in the form of technical assistance? In that context, would Stephen Tapper acknowledge that there is nothing in the Bill that commits or encourages councils simply to write off everything that they have done, and that many existing LEPs, for example, might continue to appear, provided that there has been the right local engagement?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Dr Ellis, you gave a very acute analysis of the failure of the current system to protect poorer and disadvantaged neighbourhoods from bad planning. Would you not acknowledge that having neighbourhood input—a neighbourhood veto, even—is a powerful tool to reverse that trend?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Again, I thank our witnesses very much for the time that they have spent with us. Clearly, there were many other questions that colleagues would have liked to ask, but we have run out of time. Will the next set of witnesses kindly come forward, please?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I welcome our witnesses. We are one short this afternoon; Kate Ashbrook from Open Spaces Society was, unfortunately, not able to join us, but the organisation has submitted written evidence to the Committee. I say to witnesses who are not entirely familiar with these procedures that the Committee is in no sense antagonistic toward witnesses; we simply want to gather evidence. We hope that our witnesses will enjoy this session. I ask all our witnesses to introduce themselves one by one and make a brief opening statement, starting with Mr Findlay.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Please.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

May I pick up some of the points that were just made? In some ways, this continues the discussion that we had with our previous set of witnesses. There is an issue about community rights needing to benefit local communities and not being used to their detriment. There is even discussion that the Bill must aim to reduce inequality, which is not stated. There is a particular concern about disadvantaged communities’ access to powers, which we discussed on planning, but is also important in terms of community empowerment. Could we touch on those things? You emphasised the importance of access to advice and guidance, but the context is that local authorities, which might be looked to for its provision, are facing cuts of 27% over the next four years, so will they have the resources? Where will it come from?

Finally, on community empowerment and enthusiasm for the right to bid on local services, how do we ensure that social value is delivered, as well as value for money? Do you have any thoughts about how that can be done?

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

May I come back to you on that? Authorities have announced that they are shedding as much as a fifth of their staff. You have great expertise in community development, so do you think that when 20% of the work force has been shed, councils will necessarily have the expertise in community development that your organisations have? I doubt it. If you had to look at which jobs to keep, would you protect that resource? It has to be there in planning and community empowerment.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

One of my Opposition colleagues raised what I would call an interesting argument with the previous panel around a duty of democracy for local authorities and how, effectively, that could be eroded with where we are going. I was going to put this question to Mr Findlay, but after what has just been said, the other witnesses might wish to comment.

There are two points: first, from my experience as a councillor over 10 or 11 years, “democracy” is an interesting word to use in the current system. I remember that planning applications were approved although we did not want to approve them—we had to, because we knew that otherwise we would lose on appeal. Other decisions were made but then lost on appeal, so democracy did not have too much of a say in terms of community views. With the new ideas moving forward on local councils, predetermination changes, neighbourhood plans, and community involvement, would you say that democracy, in that sense, and community involvement in it will be improved?

From that comes my second question, which is to any member of the panel, about community involvement: would you agree with some evidence we heard on Tuesday that with the community being more involved and feeling more part of the process, we might get more homes built—there has been very poor housing build over the past 10 years—and better planning results?

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

As a result, and with the incentive of the new homes bonus and so on, do you feel that your members could be looking at an improvement in house building levels?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

May I ask John Findlay about the NALC submission and specifically the issue of standards? You have highlighted some concerns, and we have had submissions from some of your members—in particular the Hampshire association, which has expressed those concerns very forcefully indeed—about the negative consequence of the absence of a requirement to have a code of conduct. Would you like to say a bit about that?

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Mr Findlay, you said at the beginning that you broadly supported the idea of a general power of competence—I think Sir Stuart said that as well. What additional things do you think your members will be able to do with this general power of competence?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I shall start by addressing this question to Mr Findlay, but comments from any of the witnesses are welcome. I am surprised by how definitive you have been. You said that this Bill “will” liberate communities, that they “will” engage, that the Bill “will” restore a sense of ownership and that if you give people power, they “will” do it. Is there not a risk that if you give people power, they will not do it—in terms of frustrating initiative for the vulnerable, which has already been referred to. Secondly, how do you address the concerns expressed to us, in a substantial body of evidence, that the Bill as it stands runs the risk of giving more power to the powerful at the expense of the powerless?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Maybe you should have been.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

You referred earlier to the planning system. An affluent community can afford a barrister; for a deprived community, support and capacity is key. What is your view on that?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

How do you address it?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

If you do not address it, the outcome is inequality. Previous evidence given to us was clear: if these issues are not addressed, we run the risk of institutionalising inequality. How do you address that?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

To liberate a community, to use Mr Findlay’s words, capacity and funding are key.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

Do you think that authorities really know the extent of the community work going on in their areas? The reason I ask is that you cannot engage unless you know. In my former local authority, where I was a councillor, we carried out an exercise and discovered that the value of the local voluntary work in one town was some £27 million a year, if I remember that correctly, at a time when 1% on council tax was £700,000, and it is true to say that everyone who was involved in that exercise was amazed.

I wonder whether we need to encourage authorities to understand what is happening out there, in terms of the groups providing support for mental health, youth provision, support for the elderly, or caring services, so that we can begin to connect in a way that I know you and I would like to see, in order to release that energy and support it.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

Thank you.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

My second question is: is risk wrong? Looking at it, enterprise almost inevitably involves some degree of risk, but the potential for success makes it worth it. Do you agree?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Three questions and five minutes left.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

Mr Findlay, I have a question on the duty to co-operate. Say there was a tightly drawn urban area surrounded by parish councils and, with a need for additional housing, the tightly drawn urban area needs to overspill. Do you think that, under these proposals, the duty to co-operate would enable that overspill to happen more easily, or do you think there would still be problems? Is it strong enough?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Your members have had a lot of experience in putting together parish plans, which are sort of precursors to this. I cannot recall a single one that has employed a barrister. Is that your view?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

But they have not gone out to employ one?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Is it your view, then, that communities producing neighbourhood plans, which is the next stage up, will also not go out and employ a barrister?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am sorry, but I have to cut you off. We are in the final minute, and this question has to go to a Minister.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Community assets are a completely new concept, and you seem to welcome them. We are getting quite a lot of push-back from others who think that the concept is unworkable or unfair, or whatever. Could you briefly say what you see as being the benefits of the idea, and the opportunities that it opens up?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank our witnesses very much for the time they have spent with us this afternoon and the evidence they provided. Thank you very much indeed.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Colleagues, we now come to our final session this afternoon. It must end at a quarter to four—[ Interruption. ] Sorry, it must end at 3.30 pm; I was scaring our Ministers by suggesting that there would be an extra 15 minutes. Will they please introduce themselves, explain their duties and, perhaps, make a brief remark on the Bill, starting with Mr Clark?

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

I guess this is directed at Greg Clark. We have heard very strong concerns expressed in some of the evidence sessions this week about possible negative impacts of the Bill. Perhaps it is not surprising that the third sector and local council witnesses in the last session were more positive overall, because the Bill very much fits into their area.

We have heard concerns about the community empowerment measures and whether they will mainly benefit people who are powerful enough. Many concerns have come out about planning—not only in the planning sessions but in many others—and particularly about the lack of links between this very new system of neighbourhood planning and national planning, and about the need for strategic planning. We have also heard concerns about changes to social housing tenure. Those concerns remain very real because of the impact that they could have in increasing homelessness and reducing aspiration. We also understand that the head of the civil service called for a review on the possible impact of the Bill on democratic accountability. Some of our witnesses also talked about democratic accountability, and questioned the notion that a neighbourhood forum of three who were given powers and resources could ever be considered representative.

I have a strong impression that this Bill was not ready. Parts of it have had very little consultation. In fact, I think that the community empowerment section has not had any scrutiny whatever; that was admitted in the note from the Department. To start with, as we have to spend our time on this for the next five weeks, I want to ask whether the Bill was not ready, and whether perhaps there has been a rush to get it out there. Is that why there are 126 order-making powers for the Secretary of State? I think there is still very real alarm, which will be expressed over the next few weeks, about all of that, because those details could and should have been put in the Bill. Was it not ready, or is it really the centralism Bill, as one of our witnesses called it on Tuesday?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Ministers, before you respond, you should be aware that every member of the Committee appears to want to ask you a question. As politicians are engaging with politicians, I am slightly concerned about the time. I would ask colleagues to bear that in mind.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

If I can push you, Minister, you are not answering my question.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

But there is a risk. I know you have a very optimistic view, which I can understand. However, in many of the sessions we have had this week, very negative concerns have been expressed about bringing chaos to the planning system, and getting to situation where we are not building the homes that we want and causing levels of homelessness. The difficult environment in communities and local government means that there are not the resources to do the necessary things. There are themes that have come across again and again in all the sessions. I had the impression sometimes that they were surprisingly negative and very strongly expressed by witnesses. We have just had the most positive session this week, but I hope you have heard some of the others. If there amendments from our side are not accepted or are not introduced by yours, there are problems, particularly with the planning and housing sections of the Bill.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

That is entirely my point. The reason for the order-making powers is because there has not been enough scrutiny or consultation. Before I came here I was told that consultation was promised that never happened. Any Bill is poorer for that. There is no reason I can see to rush this Bill. If you are trying to make a profound cultural change, you need it to be accepted and not bridled at in almost every session, apart from the last one.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

A third of our time has already gone and colleagues will be cross if they do not all get a question. We have had a Second Reading and we are going to have Committee stage and Report. So, please speed things up a little bit.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

On the point about the duty to co-operate and some of the issues that came out in the discussions about strategic planning, to execute that part of the Bill, what role can you, as a ministerial team, and the Department play in facilitating that kind of collaboration at a local authority level, rather than loading more duties on to local government?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I would like to ask the Ministers a question about the evidence base for the housing and planning part of the Bill, and I will pass round and refer to copies of your Department’s housing and planning statistics.

I want to ask whether you accept that those statistics are an accurate picture of housing output during the period leading up to the recession. In particular, I refer to table 1.2, which states the net addition to the dwelling stock over the period from 2000-01 to last year. Do the figures indicate that, in the period from 2001-02, up until the advent of the recession—in other words, 2007-08—there was a continuous increasing trend, with about a 10,000 to 15,000 increase each year in the net addition to the housing stock? By 2007-08, which was the end of that trend, was the figure of 207,000 additions to the housing stock that year not the largest for almost 20 years? How do you reconcile that with your claim that the previous system was incapable of generating enough new housing?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The figures go back only to 1992, because this particular series only began from that date. However, over that period, the 207,000 additions in 2007-08 were the largest figure ever achieved in that time. I do not regard that as miserable. It is a lot more than is being delivered now and, bearing in mind what was said the day before yesterday by Taylor Wimpey and others, could you tell us when you expect housing output under your proposals to get back to the miserable levels that applied under the previous Government?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am not jousting; these are serious questions.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Greg, your own Department—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Your Department’s figures show two things. First, before the 2007-08 recession, there was a significant upward trend in housing output, which reached its highest level for almost 20 years. That is absolutely clear and incontrovertible, and I hope that you will not try to deny it.

Secondly, on Tuesday, we heard from Mr Redfern, from the largest house builder in the country, that on his best estimate, given the changes that you are proposing, which would destabilise the planning system, it will be seven to eight years before there is a return to figures such as those produced in 2007-08. Is that satisfactory? It means that for the entire duration of this Parliament and this Government, there will be lower housing output than under the previous Government.

Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth)

One of the things that we have heard from a number of witnesses both on Tuesday and today is an excited and positive reaction to the decentralisation and the empowerment, whether it is for local councils through the increase in determination, councils themselves through the power of competence or communities on the planning side. Is one of the benefits of the Bill that, not only will there be more community involvement in housing, but communities and people will feel more involved in the whole process, across all areas? We might improve democracy by improving turnout at elections, because councils are more empowered to do what people think they are elected to do, and, equally, through that empowerment and democracy we could actually see better equality, and we could improve equality through communities and people involved in the entire process of local government.

Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central)

I wanted to comment on what you said there, Bob Neill, because the business community was less than lukewarm on the changes to business rates this morning.

However, I want to return to house building, because as we know, the lack of homes for people in this country is an issue. A lot of evidence that we have heard, both here and in the Chamber, is that homelessness is going to get worse through some of these changes. On Tuesday, when the house builders said that it was going to be seven or eight years before we returned to 2007 levels of building, they also all said that they were very concerned about the transitional planning arrangements between the system that we have now and the system moving forward. They thought that the proposals would make house building slower, and that it would take a year or two longer to get back to 2007 levels than if we remained with the current system. What do the Ministers think about that aspect of the transitional arrangements? Is there anything that they are concerned about or anything that they can think of that might at least bring that back to where we are now and not make things worse?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Fiona Bruce.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

I did not actually signal, Mr Amess, but thank you very much.

In the past, I have seen the petitions of thousands of residents dismissed—virtually at a stroke. What difference will the referendums make?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The Town and Country Planning Association said in its evidence that the two historical pillars have been fairness and effectiveness. Can I ask you briefly about both?

On fairness, how do we ensure that we do not give yet more power to the powerful at the expense of the powerless? As Sir Stuart Etherington said, it is essential that there is capacity and funding, and you are cutting back both.

On effectiveness, how do you respond to the unmistakable message from the business community that the lack of strategic planning will create real problems? Greg, you spoke about the existing barriers to development, but there is an unmistakable message coming over that the lack of strategic planning above the level of the local authority is likely to create additional barriers to development, be it housing or commercial.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

A lot of people are under that misconception, Greg, particularly from the private sector and the house building sector.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Forgive me if I interrupt once again. Just about every witness has come before us and said that the duty to co-operate is, as it stands—my words, not theirs—a vapid concept. Crucially, they say that it needs to be strengthened, including addressing this issue of the importance of the strategic. Are you open to doing that during the passage of the Bill?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

What do you mean by that, Minister?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

But, conversely, do you accept that there is a strong body of evidence that says, without seeking to reinvent regional development agencies or regional spatial strategies, that unless you address this issue of the sub-regional effectively, strengthening the duty to co-operate, it will frustrate development?

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

Ministers, could you help me understand why the third-party right of appeal, which was in both coalition partners’ manifestos and in the coalition agreement, has not made it into the Bill? I assume it is not there because a judgment has been made that the Bill offers sufficient other protections to rebalance the planning system so that the developer does not ordinarily have an advantage. Could you explain to me what those protections are?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I welcome the desire to empower and trust local people and local communities, which is at the heart of the intention of the Bill. What puzzles me is the centralising aspect of it. Why does the Secretary of State take 142 powers to him or herself in the Bill? Why does the Secretary of State say to 12 cities, “You must have a referendum on an elected mayor”? Why are our communities not allowed to have the same powers as an elected mayor for a different form of governance? Why does the Secretary of State take the power to impose and appoint shadow mayors in 12 of our cities? I think it is a centralising power too far. It seems to interfere with the rights of local communities and disempower them. I am very concerned about the 142 powers and the dictatorial aspects of the Bill. They seem to go completely against its intention, which, like every witness, I welcome.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I will have to cut off the Minister. There are three more colleagues wanting to ask questions. One after another, colleagues, and then Ministers respond. Alun Cairns.

Alun Cairns (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan)

It was interesting to note, in the discussion on house building, that Taylor Wimpey also said that under the current arrangements it would take six or seven years to get back to the 2007 level, so we are not even in a neutral position.

My questions relate to EU fines. Local authorities were quite excited by the new powers that they and communities would be given. There is a logic about EU fines; where the local authority is responsible for the fine that comes from Europe, the fine should obviously be passed down. It is not always as clear-cut as that, Minister. How do you see that operating in practice?

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I have two questions. One requires a number as an answer. How much of the country do you think will be covered by neighbourhood plans in five years’ time? The second is about equalities. You cited the powers of the Secretary of State to appeal, amend, revoke and so on. Your interpretation is one; the Equality and Diversity Forum has another take on that. It sees problems in that power. There are also issues around equalities legislation and how it relates down to neighbourhood forums, and whether they are fully accountable and will have to take heed of equalities legislation.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

Mr Lewis earlier asserted that the Bill would increase participation in the electoral process as people felt more empowered. I certainly agree with that. If one takes this with the health Bill and proposed changes to policing legislation, I think that is certainly true.

Do you think that the changes to predetermination will help elected representatives get closer to their communities in planning in future?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

May we have quick answers to the other two questions?

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

It was about equalities and the neighbourhood forums.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

And the percentage of coverage of the country, in relation to how many neighbourhood plans you envisage.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I am not suggesting that it is a target, but one of the briefs was quite clear that there was a Government ambition. Therefore, what would be your ambition?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Sadly, I have no powers to extend our proceedings for another 15 minutes, but I thank our witnesses for the evidence given to the Committee this afternoon. We will begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill on Tuesday 1 February at 10.30 am in Committee Room 12.