Localism Bill

Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2011.

Schedule 9

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 207, in schedule 9, page 290, leave out lines 14 to 27 and insert—

Amendment 137, in schedule 9, page 290, line 22, after ‘open’, insert ‘only’.

Amendment 138, in schedule 9, page 290, line 25, leave out ‘3’ and insert ‘20’.

Amendment 139, in schedule 9, page 290, line 26, at end insert—

Amendment 208, in schedule 9, page 290, leave out lines 28 to 30.

Amendment 193, in schedule 9, page 290, line 39, at end insert—

Amendment 191, in schedule 9, page 290, line 41, leave out ‘not’.

Amendment 192, in schedule 9, page 290, line 41, at end insert

‘if the local planning authority are satisfied that the neighbourhood forum is no longer fit for purpose after examining the forum’s procedures and governance arrangements’.

Amendment 209, in schedule 9, page 290, leave out line 41 and insert—

Amendment 142, in schedule 9, page 296, line 38, at end insert—

When we adjourned, Mr Dromey had just finished speaking, but I believe that he is trying to catch my eye.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

As I made clear in our last debate, in this group of amendments, we are returning to a common theme for this part of the Bill: the democratic legitimacy of the process through which neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders are made. It is perhaps important for me to start by once again strongly restating our support for the principle of neighbourhood planning. We welcome any proposals that genuinely increase local participation in the shaping of communities. However, we have very real concerns about the representative nature and democratic legitimacy of the framework presented in the Bill. We also have real concerns about the economic and social ramifications of the proposals. I will touch on the ramifications when I speak to amendment 142, which is on the equality duty, and if the Chair permits, I will return to the issues in the clause stand part debate.

Along with many of the organisations that gave oral evidence and that we have met, we believe that the Government are creating a two-tier planning system at the local level, economically, socially and democratically. We do not believe that our amendments would solve the problems that I will raise, but they would improve the Bill. We would impress on the Government that a better way of proceeding would be for Ministers to go away and rethink the proposals in their entirety.

Amendments 137 to 139 would improve the democratic legitimacy of the Government’s proposed neighbourhood forums. We want the number of citizens required to constitute a neighbourhood forum to be increased from three to 20, and we want a requirement for at least one of those citizens to be an elected councillor. Amendment 142 would apply the Equality Act 2010 to neighbourhood forums. Amendments 191 to 193 would ensure that local authorities were able to rule on the appropriateness of a local area for neighbourhood forums and on the appropriateness of the forums themselves.

It cannot have escaped the Government’s notice that their proposals will create significantly different systems in different parts of the country. There is no intrinsic problem with such flexibility in the creation of different systems, provided that they pass certain fundamental tests. Do the proposals create systems that are genuinely representative, that are transparent and open, that are accountable to the community in which they are based, that are financially accountable and that allow equal access, regardless of background, geography or resources, whether financial or otherwise? On all counts, the proposals do not meet any of those tests.

It is clear to us, having analysed the proposals and having heard the evidence presented to the Committee by a wide range of organisations, that the proposals risk being fundamentally unfair. The proposals will create a two-tier system in more ways than one. There will be a two-tier system for parish councils and neighbourhood forums. There will also be a two-tier system for those who have the resources and skills required to access the system, and those who do not.

The proposals outlined in the Bill will create a Rolls-Royce system, which is fine for those who can afford it. The Government launched the Bill with a fanfare of rhetoric about empowering communities and giving power away. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the bureaucratic, complex and fundamentally undemocratic neighbourhood planning processes will empower communities in the way that has been suggested.

I will expand on our concern about there being a two-tier system for parish councils and neighbourhood forums. Parish councils have the advantage of a statutory framework; they have the ability to raise their own money through the precept; and they have legal and other advice through the National Association of Local Councils and the county association. The neighbourhood forums will not benefit from any of those. Parish councils also benefit from elections every four years. While in some cases they are moribund, they at least benefit from a democratic framework. They have democratic legitimacy. Under the proposals, neighbourhood forums will have no democratic legitimacy.

Dr Hugh Ellis of the Town and Country Planning Association told us in the evidence sessions:

“It is very difficult to see how the neighbourhood forum in urban areas passes the test of individuals being democratically accountable, or being placed under any requirement to disclose particular interests that might be driving their issues. That means that there is a particular danger that the process is open to abuse. It means that in rural areas, at least, there is a lower form of local government at work, and that seems like a sensible unit. In urban areas, I really think that has to change.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2011; c. 143, Q238.]

Professor Jones told us:

“A local authority represents more than just a single ward or a single neighbourhood. It has a concept before it of the general borough, county or district interest. There is wider public interest than the narrow sectional interest that will inevitably be brought forward by any old group.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2011; c. 45, Q74.]

Andrew Warner of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:

“The local authority must be able to have the last word on what an area is. What you do not want is the gated community having its own neighbourhood forum, and the council block of flats next door being excluded from it. The local authority is going to have to say, ‘No, that is not a sensible planning unit. It should encompass that area.’ Similarly, we have worries about the low level. Three people cannot be representative of the community.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2011; c. 143, Q238.]

The result of the proposals would be that the 35% of the population who live in areas with a parish council would benefit from one system, and the majority of people—mainly, but not exclusively, in urban areas—will be faced with a system that is completely deficient. At the Environmental Audit Committee two weeks ago, Dr Ellis said, in reference to the structure of neighbourhood forums, “It simply cannot stand”, and that they could not “form a legitimate unit”. He went on to say that

“planning is quite contested in urban areas”,

and he said that the forums must be democratic to be legitimate.

Our amendments seek to address the clear democratic deficit that arises from the proposals in the Bill. Under the current proposals, neighbourhood forums can constitute just three people. We do not wish to impose unreasonable restrictions on local communities getting involved in the neighbourhood planning process, but that is simply too low. It permits three men or women and a dog to get together in the Dog and Duck and constitute themselves as a neighbourhood forum.

It is perhaps not surprising that there is such attachment on the part of the Government to these proposals—the Dog and Duck proposals, as they will henceforth be known. The Minister of State has, in his Tunbridge Wells constituency, a Dog and Duck at 8 Goods Station road. I do not know whether it is appropriate to plug a pub in Parliament, but apparently it is in “The Good Pub Guide”. I am sure the hon. Member for Henley regularly frequents the Dog and Duck in Highmoor, Henley-on-Thames. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is a regular drinker at the Dog and Duck, White House Farm, in Hereford.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, North Herefordshire)

That is not in my constituency.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Oh, I misread it.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I do not have a Dog and Duck in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about those places that do not have a Dog and Duck, or where people do not go into the Dog and Duck? Paragraph 3 of the equality impact assessment on neighbourhood plans talks about the involvement of black and ethnic minority communities in the planning process. I was quite surprised to read about the work, or lack of it, that has gone into the engagement of BME communities. Would my hon. Friend join me in pressing the Minister to tell us how those issues will be addressed?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

My hon. Friend raises a fundamental point. For the proposed arrangements to have legitimacy, they have to be seen genuinely to engage all sections of society. It cannot be right to have exclusion from participation as a consequence of gender, ethnicity or class. What will the Government do about that? Will they, as we believe is appropriate, apply the Equality Act 2010 to neighbourhood forums? We very much hope that Ministers will join us in saying that if neighbourhood forums are to be legitimate, they have to be truly representative of all sections of society.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, which, in a nutshell, is that the system is in danger of empowering the few and disempowering the many. Is not the challenge for the Government amending the proposals so that we have something sound going forward?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If what is being proposed is a Rolls-Royce system, I would point out that history tells us that very few people drive Rolls-Royces. If there is to be the offer of democratic engagement in shaping communities, we need to ensure that it is genuinely an offer that everyone can take advantage of. As things stand, the proposals are fundamentally flawed in that respect.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East highlighted the absence of a Dog and Duck in her constituency. I do not have a Dog and Duck in my constituency either, but our constituencies share a boundary, and on or near that boundary is the Hare and Billet. May I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, that if the schedule survived without his amendment being made to it, it is extremely likely that a lot of hares would start running there when a mere two or three people were billeted there to conspire?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

My right hon. Friend, with characteristic humour, illustrates the absurdity of the proposals. Where does it end? One could envisage Del Boy and Rodney sitting in the Nag’s Head when that pillar of Peckham society, Trigger, comes in and says, “’Ere, Del, I hear that if the three of us get together we could form the Peckham neighbourhood forum.” I suspect that Del’s initial reaction would be to say, “Rodney, Trigger, you plonkers. No one could be that daft.” Actually, somebody is proposing the capacity for a Peckham neighbourhood forum with Trigger at its heart. We propose a higher trigger of at least 20 people. For all the reasons that have been rehearsed, we believe that that would be a useful first step towards greater legitimacy.

Other serious questions remain, however, regarding representation and accountability, so in addition we propose amendment 139, which would require that at least one of the members of the neighbourhood forum

“is a councillor of the local authority for the electoral area in which the organisation or body is based.”

At the very least, that would ground the constitution and formation of neighbourhood forums in the existing locally accountable democratic framework, and would ensure greater representation and legitimacy.

Amendments 191 and 193 would empower local authorities to apply common sense to the neighbourhood forums. Some urban areas such as London do not have a parish council structure that clearly delineates the size of a neighbourhood area. Under the proposals, any request by a neighbourhood forum to designate an area as a neighbourhood area must be accepted by a local authority. That means that areas covered by neighbourhood plans might have disproportionate variation in size, with a knock-on increase in the costs borne by local authorities. Our amendments would allow the local authority to choose between the competing groups that may submit applications to become neighbourhood forums.

The amendments will not stand in the way of greater engagement of local communities in the planning process, and they will not codify in law a minimum size of neighbourhood area; for example, they will not say that a ward area is the minimum size. Local authorities must surely have the power reasonably to refuse to designate a neighbourhood area as such if there is significant conflict with local development plans or the practicalities of local ward structures. The amendments seek to provide the opportunity for reasonable consideration by the local authority, protecting it from undue cost burdens without putting in place prescriptive legislation that might be contrary to the spirit of localism.

The amendments would also provide a safeguard, of which there are few in the Bill, against neighbourhood forums that are no longer fit for purpose or that have become dominated by an unrepresentative group of individuals. Amendment 192 would create a provision for local authorities to investigate the governance arrangements of neighbourhood forums that they believed had become dysfunctional, and to disband them if the local authority is satisfied that the forum is no longer fit for purpose. Of course, a local authority would have to act reasonably in discharging that duty.

The other amendment in the group would apply the Equality Act 2010 to neighbourhood forums. The Government claim that the Bill will provide bottom-up power, but the proposals risk excluding members of the community who may, for a number of social and economic reasons, be unable to engage in a time-consuming and often technical process. The Bill risks increasing environmental injustice, because those who can afford to plan are able to improve and safeguard their environment, and those who are unable to pay may suffer increased bad neighbour developments. Let me give an example of what might happen: the replacement of a historical market with a supermarket and luxury tower block housing. There may be a loss of cultural amenity, a loss of access to affordable food, a loss of stallholders’ businesses and an increase in property prices. That would have a negative impact on poorer members of the community and could not be said to further their economic and social well-being.

Let me give a second example. A wealthy area puts together a neighbourhood plan or neighbourhood development order, while a neighbouring area cannot afford to plan. The result would be increased bad neighbour developments in the area without a neighbourhood plan. The fact that the Government have failed to apply the Equality Act 2010 to neighbourhood forums, which would protect minority and disadvantaged communities, symbolises the lack of thinking that has gone into the design of the neighbourhood planning process.

What do we know about that process? Problem one: there will be a clear democratic deficit. According to the 2001 census, the population of England is some 49 million people. Neighbourhood forums will cover 65% of that population, which is nearly 32 million people. In their impact assessment, the Government estimate that there are 7,618 neighbourhoods. In each one, there could be only three people representing the community. That means that in each neighbourhood, three unelected people could be making decisions for more than 4,200 members of the community. That is not democracy. Parish councils are a vast improvement on those arrangements, but there are also problems about how representative they are.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

I think that my hon. Friend is coming to a point that I am greatly concerned about in my locality. In the borough of Gateshead, we had one parish council and one town council, neither of which was in my constituency. Six or seven years ago, however, the town council had a referendum and abolished itself. It did not want to pay the additional precept and could not understand what it was for in that context. The parish council, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), remains.

Turning to how the new arrangements will work, I do not have a Dog and Duck in my constituency, although I have several Wheatsheafs and Greyhounds, and many other public houses that most Members probably would not want to enter. There are one or two good ones, but I must say that there are a few pubs in my constituency where having two ears is out of the ordinary. There are 22 wards, 10 of which are in my constituency, and we have determined that the borough of Gateshead has 46 or 47 neighbourhood management areas, based on trying to draw communities together to create a useful area. They are not, however, the same as the Office for National Statistics super-output areas, for example, so it is difficult to see how those particular configurations are going to work in the future.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Using his experience, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As things stand, it is impossible to answer that question. I hope that the Ministers can clarify exactly how those tensions and contradictions will be resolved.

Parish councils are a vast improvement, but there are problems of how representative they are. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government for his letter, which informs me that the Government have provided information, as requested, but they have not made any assessment of current participation in parish councils. He has, however, provided me with some historical information—I thought that only I was interested in history. That information does not quite stretch back to the Greeks and Romans, but it tells us that from 1987 to 1990, 56% of seats were uncontested and 18% of parish councils did not have sufficient candidates. That is a clear sign that the valuable role of parish councils needs to be promoted, so it is a shame that the Government have decided to repeal the duty to promote democracy.

Problem two: the proposals will empower the few with deep pockets and loud voices, and they run the risk of abandoning whole communities. According to the Government’s impact assessment, neighbourhood plans will cost “as little as £17,000”. I hardly think that £17,000 can be described as a little sum of money, but the assessment also suggests that they could cost up to £200,000. How will deprived communities, such as those in my constituency of Erdington, be able to afford £200,000? The short answer is that they will not.

As Friends of the Earth stated:

“This raises concerns of creating a new planning system which is not equally accessible to all communities unless they can afford to pay for qualified, impartial and reliable advice.”

Tony Burton of Civic Voice said:

“Our worry is that at the moment the Bill will be picked up much more quickly in areas of high social capital, in rural areas, and in those areas where developers or landowners will essentially fund the neighbourhood planning process…We would like to see a much more universal approach, and that does require a more savvy and a better resourced mechanism of support from Government and elsewhere than we are seeing at the moment”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2011; c. 28, Q37.]

Dr Ellis of the TCPA stated that

“the real risk is that those communities with significant amounts of money to spend will develop fine-grain environmental policy—and good for them; that is great, but what will those other communities do?”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2011; c. 144, Q239.]

Finally, Neil McInroy from the Centre for Local Economic Strategies told us:

“I also think the Bill, while about localism, is slightly spatially blind. It does not recognise that there is special disequilibrium—inequalities across the country—and different levels by which areas recommended in the Bill would or would not gain traction, depending on a whole range of different cultural, economic and social factors. There is a danger…that there are areas where we would pick up the freedoms, flexibilities and localism in the Bill and run with them, and other areas where we would not.”—[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2011; c. 17, Q20.]

The evidence, therefore, is clear and irrefutable. The proposals on neighbourhood planning will create a two-tier system; there will be two tiers of democracy, as well as two tiers economically, and two tiers socially. For a third and final time, I repeat our support for the principle of neighbourhood planning and for empowering local people to participate in shaping the future of their local areas. Unless there is a fundamental rethink, however, the proposals will be a disaster.

In conclusion, I would—curiously—be happier if Ministers did not accept the amendments, but only if they then told the Committee that they will go away and fundamentally rethink their proposals. The proposals should empower the many, not the few, and they should increase democracy, not undermine it. If Ministers will not agree to a fundamental rethink, the amendments are essential for us to make sense of what is a dog’s breakfast—if the Committee will excuse that rather bad pun.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I rise to speak in support of the amendments and to make some general comments about the new world of neighbourhood planning proposed in this part of the Bill. When I was preparing my speech, I thought that it seemed a long time since we were last in this room debating the schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, however, makes it feel as though I have never been away.

Towards the end of the previous sitting, the hon. Member for Bradford East made a number of telling and sensible points about the process of defining a neighbourhood. Although the hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington touched on those points and the fact that we might see narrow sectional interests skewing the making of neighbourhood plans. I will not repeat those comments, but I associate myself with them.

I have spent the past six years in and out of meetings with communities on regeneration schemes in their neighbourhoods. As a ward councillor and, later, as an executive member with responsibility for planning policy, strategic housing development and economic regeneration in Lewisham, I did not closet myself away in the town hall; I spent hours and hours in community centres, in church halls and out on the pavement talking to people about the sort of place they would like their area to be. I listened to what people were saying, and I responded, whether it was by persuading the council to find money to produce supplementary planning guidance for an area where there was a particular concern, or by finding innovative ways to consult local people on the core strategy in Lewisham’s local development framework. I have made the case for unpopular housing developments, I have made the case for an unpopular homeless hostel, I have made the case for a new Gypsy and Traveller site, and I have the scars. After a couple of years of making such cases in Lewisham, and arguing with members of the community about the positives and the negatives, I can tell hon. Members that standing up in Prime Minister’s questions is really not so terrifying.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, planning in urban areas can be a strongly contested issue, but I wonder whether these proposals, laudable as they are, provide any hope that we may completely remove some of the controversy and confrontation from the process. As much as I would love that to happen, I am not sure that it will.

I totally support the idea of collaborative planning, but I am concerned that the proposals will not deliver it. I am concerned that they will stymie large-scale developments. I am concerned that they will stoke up huge expectations about stopping development, and I am concerned that the Bill signals the death knell for any form of small infill development. In short, I am concerned that the Bill, far from promoting collaboration, will promote conflict.

The Minister has said that the schedule is not about stopping development. He has said that neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with local strategic plans, and he has said that neighbourhood plans can only go beyond, not below, housing needs identified in the local strategic plan.

The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark) indicated assent.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding, but does he really think that people will come forward to put a neighbourhood plan together because they want more homes built in their area? Does he really think that? Perhaps they will in Tunbridge Wells. If so, that is great. I shall get the train back to Lewisham and say to everyone, “Brilliant, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has told us that all the homes will be built down there. We can all go and live in Tunbridge Wells.” I do not believe that will happen. That is the real problem with the Bill.

I put it to the Minister that the Bill is written as if the whole country is made up of “Camberwick Green”-style towns and villages. The Bill comes up with a convoluted and unsatisfactory mechanism for tasking neighbourhood forums in urban areas with making neighbourhood development plans. Camberwick Green is not the same as Camberwell green. The Minister and his officials must realise that.

We have already talked about the two-tier system between areas of the country that have parish councils and areas that do not. From my experience representing an urban area, I ask Ministers to go away and reflect on how the proposals will work in the inner city.

I know I will stretch the Committee’s patience by talking about Lewisham yet again, but I beg your indulgence, Mr Bayley. I expect many members of the Committee feel as though they know Lewisham very well, and I invite them all to come and visit, but I want to provide an example of what I think is a major conundrum in the schedule.

A large mixed-use development is being built in the heart of Lewisham town centre: 800 homes, a swimming pool and leisure centre, commercial space and a new home for the City mission. It is one of two or three large-scale developments at varying stages of completion in the town centre. People who live within five minutes’ walking distance of those sites are generally against the schemes: “too big, too high, too much traffic” is the general refrain.

I understand those concerns; I understand that someone who will have light blocked out of their garden will be upset, that someone living on a neighbouring road will be worried about how many cars will drive down it, and that someone might be worried about getting their children into the local school when hundreds of new people move into the flats and houses. However, I also know that Lewisham residents cannot afford to miss out on the new affordable homes that the scheme will bring, and the brand new leisure centre and the new life being brought into the town centre.

A five-minute bus ride down the road, people say that what is happening is great; they want to know when the new leisure centre will open, and they say that the flats will be the best in Lewisham. I have not dreamed up those comments; they are things that people are saying on the doorstep.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point that brings out one of the issues in the schedule about people living outside an area being able to belong to the forum—about people who wish to live in the area being part of the forum. Her people in Lewisham might want to belong to a forum in Tunbridge Wells because that is where they want to live. Does she share my concern that it is not clear how that will work?

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I entirely share my hon. Friend’s concern, and she has pre-empted some of the things that I was about to say.

I talked of the difference between people who live a five-minute walk away and those who live a five-minute bus ride away. Would the people who live a five or 10-minute bus ride away get involved in drawing up the neighbourhood plan for Lewisham town centre? I do not think they would. They would not be living in the so-called neighbourhood. It depends how “neighbourhood” is defined; we come back to the problem we talked about earlier. However, as I have said before, they have other things to do. They are living their lives: going to work or picking up their kids from school. The football or “Coronation Street” is on. Are they going to attend meetings about defining the vision of the neighbourhood plan for their area? Someone who lives a five or 10-minute bus ride away is less likely to get involved than the person who lives a five-minute walk away. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is shaking his head.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does the hon. Lady understand how deeply patronising some of her comments will seem, and how offensive many people in inner cities will regard the suggestion that they are either incapable or unwilling to engage in shaping their communities? Would she like to reflect on that?

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I am happy to reflect on that, but that is not what I said. If anyone were to take any of my comments as patronising or dismissive of the ability of people to get involved, I would apologise. That is not what I mean to say. I am talking about the realities of life. People with a direct interest in a development will get involved. I am not sure that those who live slightly further afield, who are perhaps not quite as au fait with what is planned, would necessarily get involved.

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

The hon. Lady’s examples are often insightful regarding the underlying issues in the Bill. We could take her example. If the strategic plan for Lewisham had identified 800 homes and a new leisure centre for the town centre, would she agree that a neighbourhood plan drawn up by people who live within a five-minute walk might have found a more agreeable way to produce the same outcome?

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

They may not have done. I spoke to people during consultation on the core strategy of the local development framework. A huge amount of consultation was done, and when we consulted the wider area, people were happy in principle with the idea of new homes, new leisure facilities and new shops going into the town centre. My point is that there will always be, for some who live close by, the issue of self-interest. Those with the most immediate self-interest will always be those who are most likely to get involved.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

I want to be helpful. I do not know if my hon. Friend had time to read them, but we had some late written evidence submissions yesterday. In its submission, Chapter 7 states that

“it is important to realize that there are also ‘insiders’ within the arena of local politics—people who are better equipped through their education, financial situation or station in life to gain access to the reins of local power…people with abundant financial resources, significant areas of land or large amounts of free time.”

Chapter 7 would like to know what precautions the Government are taking to ensure that the move towards community empowerment, which we all want to support, is not captured by that local elite of insiders. That articulates the points that we are discussing.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree that it sums up some of the problems well.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The hon. Lady makes some powerful points, and her particular concern about the development was actually addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central in a way that she did not quite pick up on. Its inclusion, as a major piece of economic and housing regeneration, in the core strategy would mean that the neighbourhood plan would have to fall in line with it. The hon. Lady may say, as she did earlier, that that might come as some disappointment to people who live close by, but it is absolutely clear that it would proceed, albeit with a degree more information and discussion than before.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I thank the Minister for his intervention. I understand that that is the case, but is it not completely disempowering for that community? Those people would look at the proposals and say, “Okay. We’re a group of people who want to get together to form a neighbourhood plan,” and they follow that process. At the moment, in the Bill as drafted, the council is not even involved in the neighbourhood forum, so they need to pay someone, or to do the research themselves, which involves going online and finding out what the core strategy says for their particular area, and busily get on with defining the vision for their core area. Then somebody might say to them, “Sorry. That doesn’t conform to the strategic level plans. It’s not going to happen.” Some of those core strategies and local development plans already exist, and we are going to see more conflict, not collaboration, built into the system.

I have two more points to address. First, the fact is ignored that developable land is not spread evenly across the country or, indeed, across London or Lewisham. I used to represent a ward that contained the largest disused site on the River Thames. It is a 40-acre site, which was used by News International to store newsprint. It is now owned by Hutchison Whampoa and stands completely empty apart from the derelict buildings. There is no other site in the London borough of Lewisham that comes close to it in size. Is it right that some people in the local neighbourhood could hold the wider area to ransom by saying that they want only a certain type of development in that location, when the wider interest may be better served by something else? In developing a neighbourhood plan, is it right that individuals could spread a huge amount of misinformation about what is and is not possible on the site and what is and is not needed to meet the economic and social needs of that corner of south-east London? Where do the discussions about commercial viability take place? It is all very well for the community to say, “No. We don’t want 3,000 new homes. We don’t want 30-storey tower blocks,” What happens when the owner of the land says, “We paid x million pounds for it, and for us to make any profit, we need to realise y million pounds from property sales”? Does the site simply remain derelict?

I want to explore one more area of the schedule: the relationship between the community empowerment clauses and the neighbourhood planning sections. If a site owned by a housing association is designated an asset of community value—perhaps the proposed scheme is not popular with local people—will that have any impact on the planning process? Will it be deemed a material consideration?

I was recently speaking to my good friend and colleague the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who has such a scenario in her constituency. I was somewhat pessimistic about the provisions of the Bill and whether it would help her constituents who currently face a planning application for the site. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me as to how the Bill would help my hon. Friend and her community were that site to be designated an asset of community value.

I know that I have made a lengthy speech, and I never in my life thought that I would have quite so much to say about neighbourhood planning, but I am genuinely concerned about how workable these aspects of the Bill are. I invite the Minister to reflect on what I have said, both in Committee today and before the Bill returns to the House on Report.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

May I tell the hon. Lady that none of us thought she made a long speech? She made a passionate speech and we all appreciate her personal commitment, not just in thinking about these issues in Committee, but during her years in public service leading her community in this respect. We are grateful to her for her contribution.

I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington for his contributions about the Dog and Duck. I wonder whether our poor, benighted pubs will enjoy a revival from the custom that will come to them through being the home of neighbourhood forums or whether having a reputation as the hot bed of planning disputes, as the hon. Lady suggested, will make people avoid them all the more. We might need to reflect on that.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If the Minister is concerned about the well-being of pubs, the first thing he should do is accept the amendment to increase the minimum number of people who can be involved to 20 customers, not three.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

That intervention is music to the ears of the Minister with responsibility for pubs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst who is sitting next to me.

As it is a couple of weeks since we last met, I hope the Committee will indulge me if I reflect more broadly on where we have got to before I come on to some of the specific measures. I have been grateful for the Committee’s advice and suggestions on all these planning measures. We have proceeded, as we ought to do on planning issues, by trying to find a way that makes the best of a complex and technical area of policy. The progress we made on regional planning and the duty to co-operate reflects a maturity of debate that we can build on. The same applies to neighbourhood planning.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington for what he said about welcoming the principle of neighbourhood planning. Again, there is no difference between us on the desirability of the end. The question is how we can design it in a way that is fit for purpose. Just to anticipate some later discussions, I note the amendments on the reform to the major infrastructure planning regime, which are offered in that same spirit. My response will therefore be consistent with the tone of his amendments and contributions.

The hon. Gentleman made the point himself that the Opposition’s amendments do not necessarily address their concerns in totality. Even if we were to accept them all, they would not address those concerns perhaps in the way that we did on the duty to co-operate, where we got a clearer understanding of what was needed. We will reflect seriously on the measures and the amendments. The hon. Lady also came up with some suggestions. In general, we will ask the Committee to support our proposals because they represent a better regime than that in which the amendments would result. That is not to say that other possible amendments might not make improvements, but I have not seen anything—bar one or two exceptions, which I will mention—that solves hon. Members’ anxieties about the matter.

The essence, it seems to me, is this. When we talk about neighbourhood planning—we agree that having a possibility for neighbourhoods to come together to express a plan is desirable—we encounter what hon. Members have referred to as a two-tier or Rolls-Royce system, where parts of the country already have democratic arrangements such as parish councils or town councils in place. I infer from the amendments a degree of consensus across the Committee that they constitute a ready-made vehicle for those arrangements to be vested in. The question that arises is whether we content ourselves with having a two-tier system and neighbourhood planning arrangements whereby democratic institutions such as parish or town councils already exist, or whether we extend the opportunity to have a neighbourhood plan to other parts of the country. It would have been easier to give those rights only to parish and town councils, but in doing so we would fall into the trap that hon. Members have suggested, namely that the provisions would not cover the whole country. In drafting the provisions, we were determined to find a way to make neighbourhood planning available in areas that do not have a pre-existing democratic set of institutions.

Once we get into that discussion, there are two broad possibilities. We could require those areas without a parish council or a town council to have one; they would have to go through the process of parishing and set up a level of local government that would bring them on a par with other areas of the country. That is a perfectly rigorous and consistent approach but, as the hon. Member for Gateshead has said, some areas have consciously decided that they do not want to do that. They are content with their existing governance arrangements and they do not want the ongoing expense of a parish council, which other areas quite legitimately want.

On reflection, and we thought about it carefully, it seemed to us that requiring people to have a parish council or a town council in order to have a neighbourhood plan would constrain them to act in a perverse way. If all that they want is to come together for the purposes of adopting a neighbourhood plan without having a permanent set of elected representatives, it seemed reasonable that they should be able to do so without adopting that level of local government. If one accepts the logic of that, it is necessary to have an arrangement in areas that do not have democratic bottom-tier institutions and that do not want them—it is, of course, always open to people to follow the parishing procedures to form a council if they want to—that allows people locally to come together advisedly to form a neighbourhood plan.

That is an area about which hon. Members have asked many questions—perfectly reasonably, since this is a new approach—which were quite appropriate to ensure that we are doing this in the best possible way for those circumstances. The fact that the discussion in Committee today has concentrated on neighbourhood forums suggests that that is the right area of focus, and that we are concentrating on the area that is new and innovative.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Is it not also a concern that in areas where—by agreement with the local authority—a local neighbourhood can form a discussion body to take things forward, some geographical areas, being relatively small, might be excluded from the process? If they are outside one village or town, some people might not logically be part of one area or another and they might end up being part of no one’s determination in terms of what happens in the nearby estates or villages.

The question of whether a neighbourhood is right for the purposes of a neighbourhood forum is vested in the local authority. It will have the final decision, and the Bill refers in various ways to related requirements. It requires that the local authority has the final say on designating the appropriate area, which will be subject to criteria for what local authorities should take into account. Those criteria will be set out and as the Bill progresses, we will share what we have in mind with Parliament. It is clear, however, that local planning authorities will have the final say in designating the areas. That is absolutely right, because such bodies are the most consistent and democratically accountable organisations to determine that, and proposed new section 61G to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes it clear that the local planning authority has the final say in designating neighbourhood areas.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I wonder what thought the Minister has given to neighbourhoods such as Blackheath, which crosses the boundary of local authority areas. Half the people in Blackheath live in my constituency and half live in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, but most people there would identify themselves as one neighbourhood. Under the proposals, how would such a neighbourhood come together and create a plan?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and it is desirable that a natural neighbourhood such as Blackheath should be able to cross boundaries. We will reflect on whether the existing approach and the requirement to co-operate between authorities, which carries over from our earlier discussions on the duty to co-operate, is adequate to allow an area such as Blackheath to form itself and to have a coherent recognition under the arrangements. That is our desired intention.

Giving powers to local authorities to determine the appropriate designation in areas where there is no pre-existing democratic body—and bear in mind that it is always possible for people to go through the parishing procedures if they want to create one—returns to the question of what happens if an authority is determined to suppress the aspirations of a neighbourhood to form in this way, although I hope that that will be rare. However, some local authorities may want to preserve the status quo of the local planning authority’s being the sole arbiter of any neighbourhood decision making and planning matters, and they may want to thwart our intentions. I have had many discussions with colleagues of all parties in the Local Government Association, and I am satisfied that such authorities will be in the minority. Just as many developers recognise that dealing openly and collaboratively with communities is good practice, district councillors, borough councillors and county councillors recognise that taking local people along and finding ways to involve them is the best way to proceed. Even more than that, I completely agree with what the hon. Lady said, which is that one thing that can be said for every area of the country is that there is an elected councillor or an elected Member of Parliament.

Far from seeing these arrangements as alternatives to that organisation and the elected members there, I absolutely share the spirit of some of the Opposition amendments. We need to ensure—I expect this to be the case and have told local government audiences this—that the local member is the lynchpin in putting forward the aspirations of the people who have, after all, elected them in their ward or division to produce a neighbourhood plan. It is absolutely essential not only that they should not be excluded from that, but that they should have a very prominent role in the process. That is very much our aspiration.

Before I talk about how some of the amendments would deal with those aspirations, let me finish my point about those few—I hope—councils that might want to use these powers to frustrate the ambitions of a neighbourhood. It is important that we provide protections in the Bill, as we have done through the right to challenge, to ensure that if a neighbourhood forms itself in a reasonable way—it is a reasonable reflection of its community—and produces a plan that in due course is examined and found to be responsible, that cannot be unfairly and arbitrarily frustrated by the local authority. Some of the provisions require the local authority to act in a reasonable way, and the guidance that we will produce on the aspects of authorisation that a local authority gives a neighbourhood will set out what is reasonable and unreasonable. Our sole purpose is to prevent the abuse of provisions to frustrate local communities.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The Minister is giving a most helpful response to the issues raised. May I press him on the point about communities producing a reasonable plan and his earlier point that there is the need for engagement of an elected member? Would a reasonable plan need to engage an elected member in that process?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. I shall come on to talk about some of the specific amendments, which will better help us to understand his point. It is absolutely the case that there should be the opportunity for an elected member to have a major voice in the production of such a plan.

However, let us consider some of the amendments. Amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South and her colleagues, would restrict the membership of neighbourhood forums, so that they are open only to those resident in the neighbourhood. That would have the effect of frustrating what I think is the Committee’s joint ambition for elected members to play a role in the forums, because many elected members do not strictly live in the ward that they represent. It is important that elected members have the right to participate in the forums. I understand the thought behind the amendment—that the forums should be genuinely about the neighbourhood, rather than about people from the other end of the country—but we cannot accept it, although we will reflect on the thinking behind it. The amendment would be perverse in its consequences of thwarting the participation of elected members in that way.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I have listened to what the Minister has said. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe is right: he is clearly trying to be helpful. However, how does talking about elected members living outside the area link to people wanting to live in the area and be part of the forum? Clearly, thinking is starting to change a bit on how that works.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

We have cast the provision to allow people to participate without having the rigid delineation of saying that someone must live in a particular area. People involved in local businesses are another example of those who would be frustrated by the prescription in the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central mentioned earlier, if someone is trading in the high street of an area and they are absolutely part of the community—they are probably a pillar of the community—it would be against the intentions of everyone on the Committee for such a trader, who might trade from particular premises but live in the town next door, to be excluded from participating in discussions about the production of a neighbourhood plan that might affect their high street. The intention is to be open and flexible in who can participate, bearing in mind that neighbourhood forums will only produce a plan that goes forward to the local authority. There is no ongoing responsibility for decision making, and they are not deciding planning applications or anything like that. The local authority will judge whether the plan is consistent with the strategic aspects and whether it is sound. The plan will then go to a referendum of the residents of the area. At that time the residents will make the decision. There are various stages, so all we are talking about is access to the discussions that might produce the neighbourhood plans.

Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton)

As trading from a property within an area is a criterion for standing as a local councillor, should there not equally be such a qualification for involvement in a neighbourhood forum?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

That is exactly right. In standing for a local authority, the work connection has long been established as being an appropriate demonstration of eligibility for the more ongoing set of commitments and duties entrusted to elected representatives.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I should like to press the Minister on the idea of those wanting to live in an area being allowed to take part in discussions. I may want to live in Sloane square, but, unless I win the lottery, the likelihood of that is very remote. I think the Minister is saying that were I to participate in those decisions, I would not have a vote in any referendum on the local plan for Sloane square.

I take the Minister back to the example I gave earlier of an individual who lives five minutes away on the bus. It was suggested that that individual is free to be involved in the vision, the plan, for Lewisham town centre, even though they do not live in that tightly defined neighbourhood area. But, although they might be involved in the discussions, they would not have a vote on whether that plan should be a binding plan that is passed to the local authority. Is that correct?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The hon. Lady makes a point that is true of any number of community meetings. If one says that only certain people, based on either a residential test or trading connection, can be involved in a process, one establishes a bureaucratic system that is not necessary in practice. All we are talking about is a discussion about the aspirations for the future of a particular area.

Is it likely that people from the other side of London will turn up in Lewisham to influence a neighbourhood plan? I think not. Given the test that anything that came out of it has to go for examination and to a referendum, I think there are enough safeguards.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. I am not concerned about people coming from the other side of London. I am concerned about people who live five minutes down the road on the bus not being able to have a vote and a say in what they might perceive to be the area in which they live, but which falls outside of what is narrowly defined as their neighbourhood area. The way in which we can overcome some of the narrow sectional interests that may, in the worst-case scenario, come to dominate the creation of neighbourhood plans would be for those people in the wider area to be able to vote on whether the plan is fit to be passed up to the local authority.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I have said that I will reflect on the contributions made by the Committee. I understand the hon. Lady’s point and the seriousness of it, but we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The amendments that exclude non-residents would have unintended consequences such as excluding local businesses and local councillors. I think the cure would be worse than the problem that the amendments seek to solve. I will reflect on what she said and consider whether there is anything that could usefully be done, but my inclination is not to be over-prescriptive on what is an opportunity for people to come together to discuss the vision of the future.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I merely draw attention to the parallel with town and parish councils that have a geographical flexibility outside their boundaries. Looking at that well tested precedent might provide a way forward on this issue.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically constructive point. We should bear in mind that we have reached some agreement in our discussions that a duty to co-operate across different authority areas should be embedded in law and will apply to these arrangements. So to express the aspiration for people in neighbouring authorities and areas to meet and discuss matters of mutual interest runs slightly counter to the idea that there should be a rigid exclusion of people from forums. But I will reflect on the debate.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

Will the Minister also consider that the get-in clause and an aspiration to live in a particular neighbourhood might open the doors to a whole range of political groups? For the sake of argument, a member of, let us call it, the Tooting Popular Front may come along and say, “I’ve had my eyes on a particular property in Belgravia for quite some time and I want to go and live there some day. So I want to involve myself in the Belgravia local plan.” It may sound ridiculous, but there are lots of people with political aspirations out there who may want to engage themselves, for whatever reason, in a whole range of local neighbourhood planning processes. I am afraid that the Bill leaves the door slightly too open for them.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman says. If he wanted to turn up to meetings of the Tunbridge Wells borough council, he could. Its business might not set his pulse racing, although it has its moments—

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

I will bring a blue anorak.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be required. I do not think his credentials would be checked at the door and he might be able to contribute to some of the committees that involve members of the public. I will nevertheless reflect on what he said.

Amendment 138 deals with the Dog and Duck question and the number of people participating. I will please my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire by agreeing with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. It would be wrong to set a number too high. People will probably come together, have an initial meeting and bring other people with them. I think three is probably too low. So to the delight of publicans across the country we will reflect on this. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have suggested 20. That seems a reasonable figure to consider and we will do so before Report.

Amendment 139 deals with the requirement to have a member of a local authority on a neighbourhood forum if it is to be authorised to exist at all. I will reflect on how we can capture what I think is the Committee’s aspiration: we should assume that the default will be that elected members will be members—I hope in most cases leading members—of neighbourhood forums. I would hope and expect that in areas without parish and town councils the local elected member of the authority would be the lynchpin of these arrangements.

I mentioned safeguards earlier. If it is a requirement that to exist at all a neighbourhood forum has to have the involvement of an elected member, a council group that was opposed on ideological grounds to neighbourhood planning could mandate its members not to participate in neighbourhood forums and thereby effectively veto their existence. Therefore, I have sympathy with the way that the amendment is expressed. I want to ensure that there is every opportunity for elected members to serve on their neighbourhood forums. We cannot, however, have a situation in which the whole process can be stymied by a policy of non-participation from a particular council group.

We will reflect on how we can strengthen, whether in guidance or in expectations, the clear intention that there every local member should have the right to participate in the neighbourhood forum. The particular expression of the amendment, again, goes back to what I said earlier. I understand its purpose, but it takes us away from, rather than towards, the ideal circumstances.

Amendment 193 has some technical defects, because it refers to a “suggested area” rather than the neighbourhood area. On the guidance for the designation of areas, we will share with the Committee our suggested criteria for what local authorities, which will have the final say, will need to take into account. We certainly have in mind that the criteria should reflect on, for example, questions of diversity, include provisions for consultation requirements and be compatible with human rights and equalities obligations. Those are the arrangements that we would expect to have in place, and I am happy to share those with the Committee as we proceed to further scrutiny.

Some of the other amendments—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East is not here today to move them—are consistent with the discussion that the hon. Member for Gateshead introduced on whether the community governance review—the parishing procedure—is required when all one wants is a neighbourhood plan, not a parish council. It seems disproportionate to require people to create a parish or town council just for the purposes of a neighbourhood plan. Although in general, if people want to have those permanent arrangements, it is good. I should say that one of the possible consequences of people coming together for the purposes of producing a neighbourhood or community plan is that they may get the taste for neighbourhood organisation and then apply to become a parish or town council and to continue that arrangement. That may be an entry point into the process.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

It is a sad fact of life that such considerations in a local community quite often come to a head when it faces some sort of threat, such as if a local community school is under the threat of closure because of the education authority’s strategic plan. People will then club together and work determinedly on a particular scheme. As the threat wanes, however, the interest often wanes, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East said, people will quite often just get on with their lives. It is worth reflecting on that, but I thank the Minister for his considerations.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. People tend to come together when there is a particular threat to them in exactly the way that he says. However, we are providing a positive reason for people to come together that has not been open to them before. One criticism of parish plans in many communities is that there is not enough bite to them. They provide an opportunity, but people are sometimes disappointed that there is not more to them. The proposal could be a positive opportunity for people to engage and then to continue the arrangements afterwards.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

May I put forward a scenario from my experience to the Minister? People came together in Lewisham around local assemblies—admittedly at ward level. There was a £50,000 budget to spend over two years, but not once did a local ward assembly decide to put together a neighbourhood plan, or to use the money that was allocated to its area to pay for such a plan. Instead, it was spent on things such as youth facilities, activities and environmental improvements. Has the Minister reflected on the immediate concerns of communities, especially in the current economic climate, and whether, given that it will cost a certain amount of money to carry out this process, it will be their No. 1 priority?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

It is down to them. One of the Bill’s other features, with which hon. Members will be familiar, is that no mandatory requirement to have a plan is placed on every neighbourhood. We could have required a forced parishing of the country and the adoption of a neighbourhood plan by every area to create a completely consistent picture, but the hon. Lady makes a good point that some neighbourhoods may be perfectly content with their existing arrangements with the local planning authority and would rather do other things. I do not think that there should be compulsion.

I hope—we will be providing resources for this—that when people are given the opportunity for the first time to produce a neighbourhood plan that has force, rather than something that is, however valuably, an expression of how the community would like its future to be, that might provide greater interest and opportunity. I hope that seeing neighbourhoods throughout the country producing plans that bring the community together and provide a greater sense of what the future may be will prove infectious. We have received a range of applications from different parts of the country to pilot the scheme, and we intend that areas with eager and willing neighbourhoods, as well as a positive local authority, should be able to get on with this and learn lessons that they can share with others. We will be absolutely insistent about ensuring that we have a range of examples, including some inner-urban areas as well as rural areas, to exemplify this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East, who is not with us today, tabled an amendment related to the Secretary of State’s powers to amend some of the provisions. The amendment falls into the category of other powers for the Secretary of State, which we have said that we will reflect on, as I certainly undertake to do.

Amendments 142, 191, 192 and 209, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South and her colleagues, refer to the question of representativeness and inclusiveness. It is important that our intention is absolutely clear: neighbourhood forums should be inclusive and open to all members of the community, and they should demonstrate that. We will set that out in guidance, which will determine whether a local authority approves or declines to approve a neighbourhood as designated. We are absolutely insistent that the local authority will make that decision.

I urge the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington—perhaps in the spirit of his opening remarks—not to press his amendments to a Division. He will have the opportunity later in the Bill’s passage to reflect on whether our suggestions meet his purposes. A degree of volition exists across the Committee to ensure that people are given the opportunity to have neighbourhood plans. The narrow area that we are dealing with is the trickiest to get right, as we have no existing arrangements and are therefore designing something new. We have made a pretty good job of capturing the essence of a new system, but that is not to say that tweaks cannot be made. I do not think that the amendments would quite achieve that, but we have heard some suggestions.

I conclude by referring to one of the points that the hon. Member for Lewisham East made about safeguards. I hope that I have already assured her that significant housing and economic developments have to be consistent with the larger-than-neighbourhood ambitions set out in the local authority’s plan. It is legitimate to ask whether that would come as a disappointment to members deep within neighbourhoods who feel that they have complete carte blanche to say yes or no to anything that happens in that area. However, it is right that there is a question of responsibility here and that there is a larger-than-neighbourhood aspect to planning.

It is incumbent on all of us, as we explain the provisions to people, who are intelligent folks, to say, “You have to reflect on the needs of an area that goes beyond your particular street.” My experience is that however much people might initially think that it would be nice to be the complete determinant of everything that happens in their neighbourhood, they decide on reflection that such safeguards are necessary. It is up to all of us, as community leaders, to explain the reason for that, why we need housing and growth, and that these decisions have to be consistent with the equally democratically expressed will of their elected local authority representatives who deal with the local planning authority as a whole.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I thank the Minister for his comments, but as he, his colleagues and the Secretary of State are discussing these proposals, it is their responsibility to consider how realistic the powers for neighbourhoods will be. Many people in the country believe that these proposals will give them a huge amount of power to say no to developments and to housing, so the thoughtful comments that the Minister has just set out should be conveyed to people when the proposals are publicly presented.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am grateful for what the hon. Lady says. As the measures have advanced from proposals in election manifestos through to the Bill and the reflections that we have made in Committee, it is becoming clear to people inside and outside this House that this is a balanced set of arrangements that needs properly to reflect the larger-than-local aspect. A system that did not reflect the different levels of decision making—or subsidiarity—would not be workable or desirable. That message is getting out. During the further weeks that the Bill is before the House, and during the time when these provisions will be enacted and communicated to people, it is important that people make judgments about what they will be capable of.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I welcome the Minister’s response to the points about managing expectations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East. There is a real danger that the expectations are greater than the reality of what is on offer. What is on offer is important and valuable, but I know from my experience of working with town and parish councils that they are often frustrated by the process of giving their views on a planning issue when the views in the planning authority, which have to take account of a wider set of circumstances, do not always go with the grain of their opinion. It is important that expectations are managed, so I welcome the Minister’s line on that.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is important that we do not manage expectations too low. This is a step forward compared with what is currently available to local communities. Parish councils are restricted merely to commenting on matters before them. They do not have the ability to produce a plan that becomes part of the local development plan. While we need to be clear that people cannot make a unilateral declaration of independence, and that the Tooting popular front will not take over every aspect of plan making in Tooting, there is nevertheless the opportunity for people to have much greater expression and be able to rely on its having greater effect. That balances what we are coming to in all our discussions about planning in this Committee, and it is important that we reflect that in the country.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I thank the Minister for another constructive response. The starting point is: do all parties support the concept of the neighbourhood plan, and communities being able to engage in a neighbourhood planning process? My answer is yes, without hesitation. Do we all agree that there should not be two-tier arrangements to the disadvantage of so many communities around Britain? I hope we are all agreed. All communities should be able to benefit from the potential. We do not want a two-tier system in any sense.

The powerful contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East should not be misunderstood. In my constituency, the Castle Vale Community Housing Association—a product of the good society and good Government working in partnership—has a formidable capacity to engage in neighbourhood planning. More recently, in Perry common, a remarkable community hall opened—another product of the good society and good Government—with half the money raised by the community and half from Advantage West Midlands. That community, again, has a formidable capacity to shape events. I know there are other parts of my constituency—one of the 10 poorest in Britain—where that capacity does not exist. My hon. Friend’s earlier point about all citizens having equal access to the potential offered is of the highest importance, and we will return to those issues later in the Bill.

The Minister rightly pointed out the options if a two-tier set of arrangements is not wanted. Should there be universal parish councils, or the proposals set out in the Bill? We do not disagree with the conclusion he has arrived at, because it would not be appropriate to roll out parish councils nationwide. Conversely, arrangements are needed where parish councils do not exist. The key thing is, how to get that right at the next stages.

I will comment on points raised by the Minister. There needs to be absolute clarity about the powers of the local authority to maintain democratic overview and, where a neighbourhood forum becomes dysfunctional, to act accordingly. It is therefore crucial that such issues be properly teased out during the next stages. The Minister agreed that he will share with us Government thinking as to what is reasonable and unreasonable, and which is to be included in regulations. We hope that that will enable us to have the necessary debate, so that we can say with confidence that, in practice, the spirit of our two amendments was realised in the Government’s proposals.

Crucially, the Minister also said that those regulations will address issues such as diversity, representativeness, inclusion and inclusiveness. We welcome that, and we can have that debate during the next stages. On the amendment that deals with living in the area, we are at one on the principle, which is that by definition a local plan is for local people. We can have an intelligent debate about the issue of councillors—some of the good councillors in my own constituency do not live there—but we do not want the door to be opened for the Tooting popular front to liberate Sloane square or Belgravia, however attractive that concept might be in other respects.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

As a lifelong resident of the Tooting area, I find it impossible to believe that anybody would want to move from Tooting to Belgravia. There is so much in Tooting that I think anybody would want to stay there.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

There speaks the voice of a Tooting nationalist, whose only regret is that there is not a Dog and Duck in Tooting.

We welcome what the Minister has said about a more sensible trigger arrangement. We will need to tease out the issue of the elected member at a later stage. The Minister has said that the elected member should be the lynchpin and at the heart of the process, and that they should not have the capacity to frustrate, even though, as I think he acknowledged during his earlier remarks, there is no evidence that that is likely to be the case. It is an important principle for us to protect elected representative democracy and to ensure that it is at the heart of the process, so we will want to tease that out during the next stage of discussions.

As the Minister said, there will now be the opportunity for discussions. We hope to find consensus before consideration on Report, but if not, we will reserve our right to table amendments then. However, in the light of the Minister’s constructive response, we will not push our amendments to a vote at this stage.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

We now come to the decisions. The Committee is considering amendment 206, which was moved by the hon. Member for Bradford East, who is not present today. Only the mover of an amendment can seek the Committee’s leave to withdraw it, so I must put his amendment to a vote.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

The written evidence that came fairly late to us yesterday contained a submission from East Lindsey district council, which raised a point about the matter. It is concerned about the role and function of neighbourhood development plans, which we have discussed, and its concern is prompted by the fact that

“a Communities and Local Government representative recently suggested that Neighbourhood Development Plans would have a broader remit which could extend beyond land use planning matters, if the community wished.”

That has caused the council some confusion. It looks at the notion of parish plans and says:

“Many objectives and proposals coming out of current Parish Plans are not land use in nature, and commit other public or private bodies to actions and investment which may not be currently set out in their work programmes.”

Clearly, the council is interested in the notion that neighbourhood development plans might go further than land use, but it finds it confusing. We do not know who has suggested that to the council, but it has asked the Committee whether the intention is for neighbourhood development plans to go beyond what is specified in the Bill and relate to matters other than land use planning. I would like to put that question to the Minister.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I wish to make two brief points. First, a number of business organisations have expressed concern, because they feel they are excluded from the process. They believe that they should be able to participate in a meaningful way, particularly where the business community makes up a substantial part of a locality. I am aware of the difficulties inherent in the debate regarding the right to vote, but that is different from a standing enabling participation. We would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister clarified the Government’s thinking on that.

Secondly, various organisations with whom we have had dialogue have suggested that without, in the spirit of localism, imposing a model constitution on a neighbourhood forum, there is merit in the notion of a model of what the forum might look like, which gets that balance right between what it is and what it is not—the potential that it offers—without arousing false expectations. We believe there is merit in that and, again, we seek the Minister’s comments.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am grateful for the chance to comment on these matters. On the East Lindsey point—I confess that I have not seen the council’s submission— clearly, parish plans are promoted by parish organisations generally, and they can continue to do that. The provisions we are considering are land use planning matters. They do not give any rights to non-planning issues. If a body such as a parish wants to consider other matters, it can do so. There are no changes to the arrangements for that.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington for both the points he has made. On the participation of business—we have touched on this in our earlier discussion—one of the reasons why we do not want to be overly prescriptive on participation is to allow business owners who may live outside an area to participate. No amendments have been suggested to me that would improve the Bill on that basis, which has led me to consider that the way we have drafted it allows businesses to participate. That is certainly my intention. If it becomes apparent during the weeks ahead that certain tweaks might be considered, we have the opportunity either here or in the other place to do that in order to strengthen or clarify the Bill. It is helpful that I have had the opportunity to say for the record that I regard the participation of business as very desirable, especially in areas—for example, a town with a high street or an industrial district—where employers are significant.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I welcome what has just been said. May I make this suggestion? In light of the earlier helpful exchanges we have had and the other issue we have agreed should be addressed, it is important that the matter become an agenda item in the next-stage discussions before Report, because where there is a will, there is a way. I think there is a common will among all parties that the business community should have a legitimate voice in this process. We now need to discuss how best we give effect to that.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and I am very happy to agree to that. On the point about having a model constitution for neighbourhood forums, I can think of a number of bodies who may well be able to provide a service to them—perhaps Civic Voice can be one of those. In the spirit of not reinventing the wheel, it might be helpful for these forums to have access to a suggested way of proceeding. In relation to our discussions with organisations outside the Committee, that is a helpful suggestion. I am sure that he and those organisations—I will certainly reinforce that with them—might want to give some thought to starting work on that now.

Schedule 10

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I beg to move amendment 164, in schedule 10, page 300, line 12, at end insert

“by the authority in relation to a neighbourhood area within the area of the authority”.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 165.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

This is a similar amendment to the one we debated last time and is technical, so I shall not detain the Committee for long. It clarifies that the relevant local planning authority to approve neighbourhood development plans is the one for the area on which the plan is based, rather than one at the other end of the country.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have no objection to the Government’s proposed formulation. However, I remind the Minister that he conceded in an earlier exchange that there probably was a need to reflect on arrangements that should apply in those neighbourhoods that cross borough boundaries. The amendments reinforce the point that it is the local authority for the neighbourhood in which the neighbourhood plan has been developed that should consider that plan. They clearly do not give effect to considering the cross-borough boundaries matter, so I simply ask him to undertake further reflection. I am not seeking an amendment to this, but clearly the measure goes in one direction and what he said earlier pointed in a slightly different direction. I therefore hope that this is not the last word on the issue.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am mindful of the commitment I made. We will consider ways in which we can ensure that there are no perverse outcomes, so that Blackheath is not cast asunder as a result of the proposals.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment 148, in schedule 10, page 302, line 40, at end insert—

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 143, page 303, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—

Amendment 144, page 303, line 36, at end insert—

Amendment 145, page 303, line 37, leave out

“general conformity with the strategic policies”

and insert

“conformity with the objectives and policies”.

Amendment 146, page 303, line 39, at end insert—

Amendment 147, page 303, line 40, after “order”, insert—

“, where possible, assists the implementation and delivery, but at the very least”.

Amendment 132, page 303, line 47, at end insert—

Amendment 149, page 317, line 31, leave out paragraphs 22 to 24.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Having moved amendments 132, 143 to 149, and 236, I shall speak first to amendments 132 and 143.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

Order. May I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment? I think he referred to amendment 236. That will be moved shortly in a different debate by Mr Raynsford, so we should discuss that matter then.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

My apologies, Mr Bayley. I shall therefore speak to amendments 132 and 143 to 148 and discuss the subsequent amendment 149 later.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

Order. I am sorry to be pedantic, but amendment 149 is in your group.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Okay. Plan 3.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make the point that he wishes to make.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

These amendments—about which we are all clear—seek to ensure that neighbourhood plans are built on a robust, up-to-date evidence base and enable effective participation and involvement by all parties at all stages. However crucial neighbourhood planning is, it must be guided by strategic and national planning, for all the reasons that we have discussed at length. It must enable both national and international obligations, such as those concerning sustainable housing and renewable energy, to be properly delivered at the local level. Neighbourhood plans must be prepared under and be consistent with the strategic frameworks established in national and local plans, and be subject to the requirement to achieve sustainable development. The Bill does not include sufficient mechanisms to ensure consistency between plans at all levels, and the amendments seek to address that by requiring that plans at all levels be compatible.

The amendments also express our concern that the processes for neighbourhood development orders and plans do not include a mechanism for the full and proper consideration of environmental impacts. The Bill includes a provision to guide local authorities in relation to the proposed community right-to-build orders, where the proposals in the draft order would create unacceptable environmental impacts. We would like that provision to apply more widely to all neighbourhood development orders, and in the spirit of consistency in the Bill we hope the Minister is prepared to accept that. The amendments are familiar territory to the Committee—regarding the need to achieve sustainable development at every level of the planning process—and I do not propose to go over old ground, but I would welcome the Minister’s views and any clarification he is able to offer.

Amendment 149 raises a vital issue. It seeks to ensure that parts of our local and national heritage are not lost or damaged by the removal of key protections in law. That issue has been drawn to the Committee’s attention by evidence from across the heritage sector, which is concerned that the Bill seriously reduces protection for our most important historic buildings and their settings, and for the character of conservation areas, in a way that is entirely unnecessary, not least because of the framework already in place to defend our national heritage. This issue should be above party politics because it affects not only the places where our constituents live, but how they are able to care for that which we all cherish: our great national heritage—what it has meant to us in the past and what it will mean to us in the future. Our heritage assets include our great Norman castles, medieval market towns, ancient ports and prehistoric landscape, which are national assets but are local to the communities around them, forming part of their history and their future.

Many other places could also be badly affected by the Bill. Our ancient archaeological sites, world heritage sites and registered parks, gardens and battlefields all rely solely on the planning system for their protection. Until now, the balance between local and national responsibility for the care of our historic buildings and places has been set out in a clear national framework of legislation involving the designation of places and buildings of special importance. However, people are not inspired by buildings alone or in isolation; they are equally inspired by where those buildings belong and how they are settled within the local landscape. The look and feel of the whole setting is crucial—imagine Wells cathedral in the middle of a light industrial estate. Likewise, our conservation areas, rural or urban, are so designated precisely because they represent such beauty and distinctiveness that we want to conserve them, which is why we have historically provided them with special protection from casual development.

The Bill, however, proposes to remove the statutory obligations that protect the setting of listed buildings and conservation areas in respect of neighbourhood development plans and orders. A neighbourhood development group need not, as local authorities must, pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings or the character of conservation areas when making planning decisions. We argue strongly that there is no need to remove those specific protections, which date from 1990 and have been regarded as a mainstay of our heritage.

In practice, the provisions could allow a neighbourhood development order to propose housing, commercial or retail development right up to the boundary of a listed historic house or registered park without statutory consideration for the damage that that would cause. Likewise, the character of a conservation area could be ruined by the development of a major retail outlet in the middle of a green space within the conservation area. The integrity of the conservation area could be wrecked by all householders being able to build on their back gardens, or industrial development could grow up to and within the boundaries, all without a legal requirement to consider the consequences for the character of the area.

I hope the Minister will agree that there is a wider issue of democracy for our country. The assets I am describing have a significance well beyond local boundaries. They are, in one sense, in the guardianship of local people, but they belong to the nation, which is why they have historically been protected by national legislation. I am thinking, for example, of the conservation areas of York, Cambridge, Chester, Bath, Durham or Winchester. A decision that threatened to wreck the heart of those ancient cities would hardly be a local matter; it would be a matter of national outrage. The Bill as drafted allows decisions that could ruin or compromise the setting of our most beautiful buildings and places to be taken by as few as 20 people.

The Minister might say, “Don’t you worry, Jack; that will all be put right by the national policy planning framework,” but I am bound to say that that will not be sufficient. Given the vital importance of our national heritage, the following points would help: if it were statutory; if we knew what level of detail would be included; if we knew clearly how it would relate to local and neighbourhood development plans; or, if we knew that planning policy statement 5, which is the vitally important planning guidance that protects our historical environment, would be incorporated fully. As it stands, we do not know any such things, but in any case that would not fill the gap left by the loss of statutory protection.

We are told that this part of the Bill is about transferring planning decisions to local neighbourhoods. Although nothing has been said about reducing heritage protection, I do not think for one moment that the Government intend to reduce that. Having said that, the current framing of the Bill means that we must ask the Minister about the Government’s intentions. Can he give us clear assurances that the Government do not intend to reduce heritage protections? Our communities care about the heritage they live with and they are assiduous guardians of it, but a robust, national statutory framework is of the highest importance. Grave concerns have been expressed by heritage organisations, and I hope that the Minister will listen to their voices and agree with the wisdom of our proposals.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, and I am delighted that we returned to discussing history, because we have missed our daily historical lecture—[ Interruption. ] Some of my hon. Friends do not share my taste for our history lessons, but I think they are in a small minority. In fact, I do not know what we will do after next week, when we do not have these sittings.

Two sets of amendments have been proposed and they reflect different themes. The first, in effect, is about the examination of neighbourhood plans to make sure that they are consistent with EU standards, environmental standards, and the rest. The second relates to the heritage aspect.

On the first set, it was clear from our extensive discussions that the national planning policy framework and its responsibility for lower-tier plans should be explicit and in the Bill. It is absolutely our intention that everything conforms to that, so that there is a trickle-down through the whole process. One test of the soundness of a neighbourhood plan—as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a requirement for it even to go to a referendum—is that it has to be consistent with the local plan, which itself has to be consistent with national policy. We are clear, therefore, that that thread needs to run through everything, and the examination arrangements need to reflect that.

If the hon. Gentleman is content for us to do so, when we consider the discussions that we had about reflecting our intentions for the national policy framework throughout the planning system, we will do so for the neighbourhood planning aspect. To be clear, however, we absolutely intend that the relevant environmental and other EU standards should apply to neighbourhood plans, and we will present the system to Parliament to ensure that hon. Members are satisfied.

On the question of heritage, the hon. Gentleman anticipated my response, and it is certainly not the Government’s intention to weaken the protection for heritage assets. Although English Heritage has suggested that planning policy statement 5 should be revised and made simpler, that is very different from suggesting it should be weakened or dispensed with. The hon. Gentleman is right: as drafted, the Bill gives rise to understandable concerns on the part of the heritage community, not least the hon. Gentleman with his penchant for history. We want to make it absolutely clear that those concerns are not diminished in any way, but, in the usual course of things, although we are sympathetic to his amendment, the normal practice is for us to take it away and check with the lawyers whether any tweaks need to be made to it. We will come back at a later stage with something that reflects the amendment’s intention.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Once again, I welcome the Minister’s constructive response. I want briefly to respond to the two points he raised. First, it is helpful that he has clearly stated that the Government intend for there to be consistency. It is now simply about how they give effect to that, both in the Bill and through regulations. On that basis, we are happy for our dialogue with the Government to proceed, so we will not be pressing the amendment to a Division.

Secondly, it is also very welcome that we have agreed on the principle of the amendment. In those circumstances, I have no problem with the Minister checking on the appropriateness of the wording. I think he will find that it is pretty sound, but, given that we are agreed on the principle, it is about giving effect to that principle. So on that basis, too, I am more than content not to press the amendment to a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 128, in schedule 10, page 303, leave out lines 17 and 18.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, York Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 236, in schedule 10, page 303, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment 128 is simple and straightforward and I hope that it commends itself to the Minister, as have other amendments we have discussed this morning. It relates to the procedure for making a neighbourhood development order and the independent examination of such orders.

Paragraph 7(6) of the schedule deals with the persons who may be appointed to oversee the independent examination. There are—perfectly reasonably and properly—requirements to ensure impartiality and competence on the part of the examiner. Amendment 128 would remove sub-paragraph (6)(b), which specifies that the person chosen to carry out the examination should not be

“an employee of the Crown or of an authority with local government functions”.

The other provisions in sub-paragraph (6) are entirely reasonable. Sub-paragraph (6)(a) states that the examiner must be

“independent of the qualifying body and the authority”,

so no local government officer from the authority affected by the proposal could possibly consider the neighbourhood plan. That is absolutely right and proper. Sub-paragraph (6)(c) addresses conflicts of interest and states that the person concerned must not

“have an interest in any land that may be affected by the draft order”.

That is also absolutely proper. Sub-paragraph (6)(d) states that the person concerned must have “appropriate qualifications and experience”, so they could not be someone who had been dredged out of the Dog and Duck.

Those provisions are very sensible, but sub-paragraph (6)(b) is not. The exclusion of employees of the Crown and employees of other local authorities essentially takes out the two groups of people who are probably best qualified and experienced to consider such neighbourhood plans: local government officers from other areas and planning inspectors. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government wish to be so restrictive as to exclude those two groups from consideration. Why have they been excluded? It cannot be because they might be considered to be not independent, because the principle of independence is established by sub-paragraph (6)(a). In any case planning inspectors have a well developed culture of impartiality and independence, so it cannot be that. What is the possible logic for excluding these people? It is not conflict of interest, because that is covered by the provisions, and it presumably cannot be that the Government want to exclude people with expertise because they say very clearly that the examiner must be someone who

“has appropriate qualifications and experience.”

The provision seems perverse. The only possible explanation is that the Government want to ensure that the examination is relatively informal and is not surrounded by a panoply of legal expertise, as can happen in a planning inquiry. I have attended a number of planning inquiries over the years, so I have seen the extremes. I have seen inquiries dominated by lawyers—big, formal, legalistic events—and local inquiries handled very sensitively by planning inspectors who understand the need to make people feel at ease so that they can come forward to put their case and who therefore avoid any sense of excessive formality other than proper procedure.

I cannot for the life of me understand the reason for the exclusion of planning inspectors and local government officers. The exclusion would have a curious and perverse result: the people then most likely to have the necessary qualifications and experience would be lawyers. If the Minister wants to have legalistic local examinations, this is the right way to go about it, as it will ultimately be a lawyer or possibly an independent planning consultant who will be consulted—the latter are not known for charging modest fees. If the Minister wants, as I suspect we all want, a procedure that is well-run, efficient, not over-legalistic and not unduly expensive, he will find that sub-paragraph (6)(b) is very unhelpful. If the provision remains, it is almost inevitable that the people likely to handle such inquiries will be lawyers—with the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, they are also inclined to charge rather fat fees for their services—and independent planning consultants.

I have no personal interest in this, but I believe very strongly that examinations of neighbourhood development orders should be conducted properly, efficiently, expeditiously and with sensitivity to the views of the members of the public coming forward to give evidence. It seems perverse to exclude planning inspectors and local government officers, provided that they have no involvement in the area affected and there is no conflict of interest. I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and agree that the provision is not sensible.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I strongly support the excellent case made by my right hon. Friend and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

I shall speak briefly to amendment 236. At present, the default position for neighbourhood development orders and neighbourhood development plans is that the examination will be by way of written representations. Amendment 236 is a probing amendment that we tabled to find out whether the Government believe that written representations allow for proper examination and the testing of evidence by local people. There is a need to ensure that local people’s views are properly heard and not subject to the discretion of an examiner who could undermine the bottom-up process. The amendment would therefore allow an oral hearing to take place if that was requested by an interested party in the area. I hope that the Minister will clarify his thinking on this. I stress that the amendment is probing, but it raises important issues about process.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I support the comments of both my colleagues, and particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington about his probing amendment. We must ensure that the approach really is bottom up and that we do not accidentally expunge people’s voices, because some views are better presented orally than in writing.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

First, I should say that one of the reasons why we take amendments away for checking, even when we agree with the thrust of them, is that words have a certain legal meaning. I have said that the intention is that there should be consistency in all the plans, but it was pointed out to me that “consistency” has a particular legal meaning. As the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich knows, “have regard to” is a normal phrase to use. I should clarify that I was not indicating the legal use of “consistency” when I made my point, although that does not alter the thrust of the commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington.

As we are discussing a legal matter, which is the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s case, I am sure that the clients of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, would consider that he was good value and worth every penny that he charged—perhaps excluding those who are currently enjoying time at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is absolutely right that our intention was that the process of examining neighbourhood plans, which already have the safeguards that we discussed earlier, should be relatively straightforward instead of a great festival of QCs locking horns with each other. He is on to something when he says that we might be inadvertently excluding people who may have the skills but might not be inclined to proceed in that way. I agree with the thrust of his amendment, and when local authority officers or other Crown employees, such as planning inspectors, have something to offer, they should be available. In the spirit of the approach that we need to take with such things, we will reflect on his words and return with something that reflects that intention.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that constructive response, but may I tease him a little bit? He says that it is necessary for the Government to take away amendments and consider their wording to ensure that they are legally satisfactory. Given that amendment 128 involves no wording—it simply deletes a provision—will he explain why he has to take it away?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to one of the points about the ways in which we operate that I am curious about myself. I daresay, however, given that he has been in my position on many occasions, he has had to give the same response to my colleagues in previous Parliaments because he will have been obliged to follow the same procedure.

Amendment 236, which we heard was a probing amendment, allows us to consider the perfectly reasonable question as to whether people should have the right to request—and, by implication, to be granted—a hearing. The Government intend that it should be possible for the examiner to take oral evidence, if they wish. If they consider the written representations to be sufficient, however, there should be no obligation. Again, that is a safeguard so that if a minority were determined unnecessarily to engage the examiner in lengthy and perhaps costly activity, the examiner would have some discretion to exercise their judgment. We are not opposed to the possibility of people giving evidence in public. However, in many cases, it will be appropriate for expressions to be put in writing and then considered.

To ensure that the provision is as clear as it should be, I will reflect on the points raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. With that in mind, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 11

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I beg to move amendment 166, in schedule 11, page 313, line 8, leave out ‘neighbourhood development’ and insert ‘community right to build’.

The amendment corrects an error in schedule 11. For consistency, paragraph 10(3) should include a reference to the community right to build order and not a neighbourhood development order.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The schedule states that a local planning authority could decline to consider a community right to build order only if it was considering another order and the development and site to which the proposals related were the same. That suggests that a community right to build order should be considered, even if it is substantially different from what had been promoted by a neighbourhood development order that had already been developed in close consultation with the local community. Does the Minister think that that will lead to community right to build orders undermining the effectiveness of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am grateful for the chance to set out our thinking. In earlier discussions, we established that it should be open to communities that do not want a parish council nevertheless to have a neighbourhood plan, which is why we have neighbourhood forums. Similarly, if a local community or neighbourhood simply wants a small-scale housing development, but does not want a broader plan for the neighbourhood, that should be possible. Hence, we have the narrower and more specific opportunities. This depends on the sequencing, but if there is a neighbourhood plan, there will be the duty to co-operate and there will need to be consistency between those things. We expect that the community right to build will apply in areas and circumstances where there is no intention to have a neighbourhood plan.

Clause 100

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Labour Members are very concerned about the lack of financial assistance that the Government will provide for neighbourhood planning. We are also deeply concerned by the decision to end the funding regime for Planning Aid England on 31 March.

In December 2010, the Royal Town Planning Institute president, Ann Skippers, said the decision to cut Government funding for Planning Aid would leave communities “high and dry”. That decision goes directly against the Government’s claim about wanting to empower local communities. Planning Aid could have provided much-needed assistance to communities that want to get involved in the planning process in their areas.

Will the Minister therefore clarify a number of points? We are aware that discussions have been taking place on the arrangements from 1 April onwards, so will he share with the Committee what progress has been made? Secondly, will he clarify who will be provided with financial assistance? Thirdly, how much have the Government set aside for that assistance?

Finally, are the Government satisfied that the financial assistance will be sufficient, particularly in light of many organisations’ concerns about the huge potential for inequality throughout the system? In asking that question, I refer to two points. On the one hand, there is the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, whose concern is widely shared. As she said, if the Government mean what they say, they should empower all to take advantage of the proposals. I know from my own experience the excellent work that Planning Aid has done in communities up and down the country. On the other hand, I am mindful of what the Town and Country Planning Association said about the dangers of institutionalising inequality. Support, capacity, help and advice will be central if communities without the necessary capacity are to take advantage of what is on offer in the Bill.

Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East)

I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington. The impact assessment on neighbourhood plans refers to estimated costs of between £17,000 and £63,000, while some external estimates are even higher. The impact assessment refers to the costs being met partly by the local authority and partly by the plans’ promoters. However, local authority planning services are hugely stretched. Yesterday, I spoke with the head of planning in Lewisham, who told me that he has had to make 25% savings in his revenue budget in the section he is responsible for, which includes planning and economic development. I simply do not know where the people and resource will come from in local authorities to facilitate some of these plans, although some will be produced externally and other organisations will be paid to produce them.

I make a plea that Ministers think hard about how much these documents will cost. Let me give three examples from my time on Lewisham council, during which I produced documents that were similar to, although not exactly the same as, the ones proposed. In response to community concerns, the council produced the Bromley road supplementary planning document. It was not included as one of the initial development planning documents when we looked at our local development framework, but we decided to carry out that piece of localised neighbourhood consultation in response to community concerns. It cost £50,000 to produce. The Deptford and New Cross master plan cost £75,000 to produce, while another document, “Guidance for Hither Green”, cost £50,000.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, North Herefordshire)

On a point of order, Mr Amess. One of the doors is locked and people cannot get in the room. Can we open the door?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The sitting will be suspended as we do not seem to have a Doorkeeper.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We now have a Doorkeeper. I think that there was a misunderstanding, but we obviously could not have started without a Doorkeeper because there might have been a Division. I thank the Government Whip for his advice.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Amess. It is disappointing not to see the hon. Member for Lewisham East in the room because I am going to respond to her speech. I will do so in her absence, however, and she might want to read the record.

The hon. Lady asked whether particular officers of her authority would feel able to respond to the pressures on planning that might arise in the future. One of our proposed changes, which is out to consultation, is that planning authorities should be able to recover the full costs of their service in a way that they cannot at the moment. It ought not to be the case that a planning authority cannot afford to put in the necessary work to consider planning applications because of the resources available.

This is a good opportunity to address the points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington made about Planning Aid. When drawing up the neighbourhood planning provisions, I insisted that we make support available to communities and local authorities to ensure that people could avail themselves of the rights that are available. The Committee has had various discussions about how the capacity for communities to put together neighbourhood plans will no doubt differ from place to place, although where there will be differences is not entirely predictable. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Castle Vale in his constituency several times, and I know from visiting it that it is a remarkable place with strong capacity and a tradition of strong community leadership. Nevertheless, there will be other parts of the country that should benefit from the approach.

In what was clearly a difficult public spending round for the comprehensive spending review settlement, we have been able to secure £5.5 million to support the early stages of the new neighbourhood planning system. We have made sure that £2.5 million over four years will go specifically to the Planning Advisory Service so that local authorities can develop their skills and knowledge, and build up the expertise that is necessary to be able to operate at the optimal level of capacity. We have also provided—I was very keen to do this—approximately £3 million of funding a year so that neighbourhoods themselves have access to independent advice. I am proud that we have managed to secure more than £5 million of funding for support, and that is over and above the new burdens funding that automatically flows from the costs arising on local authorities and others. At a time when it is apparent that there was great pressure on programmes, it is an achievement that we have been able to secure such important funding.

The question is what to do with the money and how to allocate it. The intention of the Bill, as I think all Members know by now, is to try to move our system towards a plan-making basis where communities have the chance to express their aspirations in plans, rather than relying, as we have to date, on what is in effect the development control process, which often involves arguing with lawyers—it is certainly a litigious process—about particular planning applications. Our approach explicitly reflects the policy intent of the Bill: we should use money to provide communities with the chance to build up their capacity to develop plans, including neighbourhood plans.

On the issue of allocation, it seems to me that there is no monopoly on wisdom. Different groups of experts and different bodies throughout the country, especially national ones, will be able to give advice to communities. I felt that to have a single body as the only source of advice to communities on neighbourhood planning would be wrong and inconsistent with the type of approach that we have taken elsewhere in the Bill on community rights, for example, under which we have enabled other bodies to express an interest in providing a service.

For that reason, we have invited applications for the fund. I have been advised that Planning Aid England is one of the applicants. This is a big opportunity, not just for Planning Aid—obviously I cannot prejudice the determination of its application—but for other organisations that have, for the first time, the chance to come together and prepare a means of supporting communities in producing plans. I can tell the Committee that we have had 37 applications for funding under this programme from organisations up and the down the country. As one might expect, we are going through a rigorous selection process, including shortlisting and then further assessment of their applications. One question that we particularly want to assess is what added value can be brought by different types of organisations. We want to bring experience of different types of communities to make sure that there is available for communities to choose—and it will be their choice—a sufficient range of organisations so that they feel that they have the adviser and the support that best fits their needs and circumstances.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I appreciate the detail that the Minister is giving us and I understand that he cannot pre-empt the outcome, but will he say a little more about the precise criteria that the Government will use to select the successful bidders?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The criteria were set out in the letter, which unfortunately I do not have with me. That has been communicated publicly, and bidders will be rigorously judged against those criteria. We indicated in that letter that we would like a small number of organisations—more than one—to be funded so that there is a degree of choice and a range of approaches.

I understand the role that Planning Aid has played over the years to help our communities. There is an opportunity here that I understand it has applied for, although for obvious reasons I cannot prejudice the proper application of the criteria. I hope that what I have said gives some context against which the decision can be taken.

Inspiration has reached me about the selection criteria, which are in the prospectus that has been published and is widely available. The key considerations that have been suggested for applications are that advice, assistance and guidance should be made available in respect of as many areas in England as is practical and that communities should have a choice of the provider of assistance, advice and guidance. There are various other things about which I will not detain the Committee with too much detail concerning the track record of the organisation and the breadth of its experience. One would expect such conditions to be applied.

I hope that I have helped the Committee to understand the background to the decisions that relate particularly to this clause, which gives the Secretary of State the ability to provide funding to organisations to support neighbourhoods.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I have two points. First, our concern is that looking at the totality of support on the one hand, and the funding within local authorities for planning departments on the other, we will see less overall, although much more is demanded of planning departments and also those who assist communities in the development of neighbourhood plans. For all the reasons that we have rehearsed this morning, we are worried that a problem of capacity might get in the way of communities’ ability to take advantage of the opportunities that are now open to them. To that end, we will monitor the situation carefully as it unfolds, as I hope that Government will. The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government might also want to keep the matter under review.

Secondly, we have no problem with the notion of a diversity of provision of advice to communities and local authorities. We want to place on record, however, our regret that the arrangements that have successfully pertained for some years with Planning Aid have been dismantled in such a way. Although we accept that those involved will be able to make an application, the fragmentation at the next stage will not be helpful. Planning Aid is an excellent organisation with a tried and tested record. The key thing now is to keep experience under careful review as it unfolds. I stress again that we do not want any community to lack support, advice and capacity if it wants to take advantage of the opportunity to draw up a neighbourhood plan.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the importance of ensuring that capacity is available. However, he is a little too pessimistic when it comes to local authorities. As I said earlier—I see that the hon. Member for Lewisham East is now in the room—we have freed up an opportunity for local authorities to recover the cost of the work that they undertake on planning matters. If they avail themselves of this opportunity and there is an increase in their planning work load, they will be able to recover the costs of that in a way that they cannot at the moment because the fees are capped. I repeat that we have made a commitment to monitor the burdens on local authorities that arise from some of the additional provisions in the Bill and to fund those new burdens. There is no reason why local authorities should feel disadvantaged.

On neighbourhoods, we are establishing the fund. We drafted the clause as we did because it is currently not possible for the Secretary of State to provide grants directly to neighbourhoods in such a way. The direct provision of funding for that capacity represents a progressive step. It was clearly significant that we secured the level of funding that we did. However difficult a time this is for the employees of Planning Aid, I dare say that they expected a difficult funding settlement. Moreover, if they looked at the direction of the proposed policies of the two parties that formed the coalition, it was clear that neighbourhood planning would be an important theme, so I think—and hope—that they have prepared for the increased emphasis that we are putting on neighbourhood planning. However, as I say, that will be a matter for Planning Aid’s application, which has now been submitted and will be considered very rigorously.

Clause 101

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment 235, in clause 101, page 71, line 34, at end insert—

This important amendment would introduce much-needed flexibility, with a caveat that I will mention at the end of my remarks. The amendment would give councils greater freedom to dispose of their land for the price and purposes of their choosing. Section 123(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 imposes a duty on local authorities to obtain best consideration for the disposal of land. The statutory duty to obtain best consideration is often cited as a reason why local authority land cannot be disposed of to community groups or for affordable housing use.

Although there are consent procedures to obtain permission, the statutory restriction creates a culture in which immediate financial considerations are thought to outweigh other social, environmental and economic interests. Repealing the duty would allow local authorities to dispose of and treat their assets more freely, and would be consistent with the aims of localism. Such a policy would effectively reinforce what I hope will be the impact of the forthcoming community right to reclaim land, and would enable a step change in the transfer of surplus public sector land for affordable housing and other sustainable development.

In my conclusion, I shall mention the caveat. When it comes to public assets, of course it is right to ensure that local authorities proceed in the public interest and with due prudence. We do not for one moment believe that, for example, fire sales of local authority assets by authorities that are strapped for cash are appropriate. However, conversely, we should have flexibility, so that valuable social, environmental and housing initiatives can be proceeded with and are driven by the public interest and the community. We hope that the Government will agree to that.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I have great sympathy with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. As he says, it is consistent with the direction of our reforms to give more power and discretion to local authorities, rather than requiring the Secretary of State always to intervene. My reaction to the amendment, however, is that I am not sure that the proposal is a matter for the Bill.

First, such applications are made relatively rarely in practice. I am told that in recent years an average of just seven applications a year have been made to the Secretary of State. I have made one or two such decisions in the name of the Secretary of State, and they have always been pretty straightforward, so it is not a huge burden. Secondly, I am advised that it is not necessary to change primary legislation to effect such a change; there is enough flexibility in existing legislation, and it can be done administratively by amending the general disposal consent.

I undertake to reflect on alternative ways of addressing the issue, which has merit. This is a slightly separate matter from the others that are being considered in the Bill, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit in which I have responded.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Again, I thank the Minister for his constructive response. It is accepted that the existing arrangements are rarely used. Therein lies part of the problem, in a sense. We agree in principle that the amendment has a noble objective, and there is flexibility in existing legislation to facilitate the change, so we welcome the Minister’s assurance that before Report he will look at how we can take the matter forward, including promoting the availability of the notion to local authorities and communities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 102

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 102, page 72, line 34, at end insert—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 189, in clause 102, page 72, line 34, at end add

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Amendment 189, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, adds a requirement to consider the advice given by a local design review panel in pre-application consultation. It defines the local design review panel as

“a panel appointed by the local planning authority to examine and advise on the design of the proposed development.”

Quality design is key to ensuring sustainable construction, sustainable developments and, I dare say, environments in which people want to live. We are all scarred by the lessons of the history of some of the developments in our constituencies. I mentioned Castle Vale earlier; it was a nightmare, with people queuing up to get out. It was a high-rise estate clearly designed by architects and planners who never intended living there themselves. It has since been levelled, rebuilt and regenerated into fine two-storey housing that people are queuing up to get into. It is of the highest importance that design is of the kind valued by communities.

Design review would ensure that proposed developments co-ordinate well with their surroundings. Given that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has unexpectedly withdrawn funding from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and has announced that CABE will merge with the Design Council, can the Government be sure that quality design will continue to be a priority? Only 20 members of staff from a previous total of 125 are expected to move to the new organisation. Do the Government believe that they can continue to ensure that design is represented properly in the planning process? Given the withdrawal of funding and the merger, amendment 189 is all the more important in ensuring continuing good design.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the future of the Design Council. My local authority, West Sussex county council, put together a design commission of local architects and community representatives. Is not that sort of local solution the best way forward, rather than some top-heavy centralised system?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Such local initiatives are welcome, but previously, organisations such as CABE with good track records of advice, assistance and support worked strategically with Government and local authorities. Where a reorganisation of the kind that I described has taken place, the legitimate question that must be asked is whether the Government can be sure that the objective of high-quality design continues to be central to the planning process. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will go into further detail on the subject, and I hope that the Government will hear what I think is a good argument.

Amendment 152 ties in with our earlier helpful debate on the “town centre first” policy. I do not intend to tread the same ground that we trod earlier, but I would just say that it was absolutely apparent from our debate in Committee and from the Westminster Hall debate held before Christmas that Members of Parliament from all parties are committed to ensuring that we have thriving town centres.

Amendment 152 seeks to strengthen the clause by placing a statutory duty on developers to consult before applying for planning position. Developers carrying out pre-application consultation must provide an independent examination of the economic and social impact of the proposed development. The scope of such an examination will be agreed by the developers and the local planning authority before the consultation.

The duty to consult is an important and positive innovation in planning law. The key to its success is ensuring that communities are provided with the objective information that they need to make decisions, including information on the potential impact on town centres. The amendment will ensure that a meaningful assessment is made of the impact of developments such as out-of-town shopping centres on the local economy and the social fabric of the community. I stress in the spirit of localism that the amendment would not impose the scope of the examination—that is for the local planning authority to decide—but it does empower local planning authorities to assess what is best for their locality. I hope that the Government will feel that they can support the amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As my hon. Friend highlighted, amendment 189, which I tabled, is concerned with design review and seeks specifically to encourage developers entering pre-application discussions with a local authority to have regard to the views of design review panels. I will explain the logic behind the amendment in a moment, but I should reiterate at the outset that, as I said at the beginning of our proceedings, I am an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects; I say that only because it is responsible for promoting amendment 189.

We are all conscious of the importance of good design. I do not intend to go into too much history, but as the Member of Parliament for Greenwich I cannot but make the point that areas that have some of the finest historical buildings in our country are immensely proud of them, and we know the value that good design has given to our society over the ages. Periods that have generated buildings of wonderful quality are looked back on as high points in our country’s history.

Poor-quality design has the obverse effect. People feel cynical. People feel that developers are simply trying to put buildings up to make money, without any regard to the impact on the environment and the area in which the buildings will sit. In some cases, it leads to outright opposition and hostility to development; communities do not want to have buildings or developments that they regard as tawdry, poor quality and badly designed imposed on them.

There is an absolute common interest across the Committee in trying to promote good-quality design, but I am not so naive as to believe that good design is something on which there is automatic agreement. There is always a degree of subjectivity. If I might go on a slight historical journey, we now regard many Victorian buildings as being absolutely magnificent—some of the finest buildings in our capital city. St Pancras station is one example, yet it was nearly demolished, because there was a period when views were hostile to the Gothic revival, and there was a willingness to demolish such buildings. I do not pretend that the amendment is an absolute panacea and that there will always be consensus. I do contend, however, that buildings of quality enhance our environment, and it is in our interests to ensure that we try to promote good-quality design.

The previous Government were concerned with that issue, and did a lot to promote good-quality design. We commissioned a report from Lord Rogers, entitled “Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance”, which highlighted many of the practices that are now taken for granted and which should help to promote high-quality design in new developments. We also established CABE. It is a mistake on the part of the current Government greatly to reduce CABE’s funding and to force it into a merger with the Design Council. That merger may well have some beneficial consequences, but forced mergers with organisations facing financial difficulties are not easy. In the case of CABE, one of the risks is the potential loss of design review, which was one of the methods that it adopted to try to promote good-quality design. I will come in a moment to the point that the hon. Member for Crawley made about the role of local design review, as opposed to a central organisation, but I will say, in tribute to CABE, that it helped to promote the concept of taking the design review process much more seriously and encouraging local authorities to adopt it as part of the process of considering planning applications.

Of course, good design is more than just development control, as the Minister highlighted earlier, and the design process should feed into the whole development procedure from the outset. Design is about more than the quality of individual buildings. It is often about the landscape, the environment, the relationship between buildings and how the whole urban fabric works. We should not limit our attention to the quality of individual design. The design review process is able to make a positive contribution, both helping to improve the quality of individual buildings and leading to a greater understanding of the importance of good design in fashioning the future of our built environment.

Design review is an established method of providing informed and critical advice to schemes working towards securing planning approval. It consists of a panel of multidisciplinary professionals, providing constructive appraisal of a proposed scheme or development. It is felt by the Royal Institute of British Architects to be most successful when carried out at the early, conceptual stage of design, preferably at the pre-planning stage. Panels operate across England at national, regional and local level, and they help councillors, planners, clients and designers to improve design quality and better meet the needs of their communities and customers. It is a tried and tested method of promoting good design, and a cost-effective and efficient way to improve quality. At its best, design review considers more than the single building as an object—it considers how the building works with the existing and future fabrics surrounding it. That is important for communities, as it takes into account how a development will contribute to the functionality of an area, and not simply the appearance of the area.

Design review can be a powerful tool for improving new developments, and the amendment is designed to support that process and give design review greater weight in the planning system. If that were achieved, developers would have more confidence that applications would not be arbitrarily turned down on design grounds, and there would be an opportunity to consider, together with professionals who had an understanding of the issue, how a design might be altered to meet any objections. In every way, that seems to be a positive contribution to improving the design process.

The hon. Member for Crawley referred to local panels. If he looks at my amendment, he will see that that is precisely what it proposes. It does not propose an overarching national quango, but that advice given by a local design panel be taken into account as part of the pre-application process. It goes on to define a local design review panel as

“a panel appointed by the local planning authority to examine and advise on the design of the proposed development.”

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that my amendment is absolutely in keeping with his objective of localising the focus on design, and that the Government will recognise that it would have that effect.

The amendment would reinforce a cross-party wish to improve the quality of design, and I hope that it will be accepted. I do not expect that its precise words will be, and in this case I have to argue, because there are words, and there is not simply a vacuum. I hope that the Minister will take on board the thinking behind the amendment and will consider incorporating such a provision in the Bill in this House. I know from past history that in another place the issue of design is taken seriously, and I have no doubt that the matter will be returned to there, if we do not do our job properly in this House.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I rise briefly to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. Good design contributes to the health and well-being of communities and individuals, and it makes a real difference. I have seen at first hand the quality of work by organisations such as CABE, and the impact that local design review panels can have in bringing about better outcomes, in the building infrastructure and in the use of space. It creates a benefit; it is worth while, delivers improvements and brings about greater sustainability. I hope and believe that the Minister is listening in positive mode today, and I am sure that he is listening in positive mode to this point.

I would like to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington. Town centres are important places in the life stream of our communities. I noted that the Association of Convenience Stores supported my hon. Friend’s amendment. It represents the independent sector, which is an important part of small business, and it needs support in the way that we put the infrastructure of localism in place. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that have been raised.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I always listen in a positive fashion to contributions made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington and for Scunthorpe, but I shall disappoint all three of them by not accepting the amendments. That is not because the intention behind them is not shared, but because such a method of delivering that aspiration would not be likely to succeed and, for reasons I shall come on to, might make things worse.

Design and contribution to the economy are at the heart of what we are aiming at. On design, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich might know that I have invited discussions with RIBA to see how we can advantage good design in the planning process. After the many hours that we have spent scrutinising the Bill, if there is one outcome that we would all want to see, it is that the built environment is better than it otherwise would be, and that it is beautiful and functional for people to live in.

While I think we share the same ambitions, however, I do not agree with the method outlined by Opposition Members. On amendment 152, we share the admiration for the Association of Convenience Stores. It rightly wants us to make a commitment to recognise the important role that stores play in our communities. However, the proposal to require, as part of this pre-application scrutiny, developers to undertake an independent examination of the proposed development, to be presented to the local planning authority and to as many persons as specified, introduces a new stage into the planning process.

The intention behind the clause is to get applicants to consult directly with the affected communities. By interposing a new independent examination, the amendment would do something very different. It is not clear who would carry out the independent examination or at what stage it would appear. At a time when all Committee members—certainly Front Benchers—are calling attention to the delays in the current planning system that act as a deterrent to investors and to economic activity, the introduction of a requirement for an independent examination and report would have the opposite of the desired effect. It would make proper economic regeneration less likely, rather than more likely. I am happy to restate a commitment I have made before: the importance of town centres will continue to be reflected in planning policy. Amendment 152 would entrench a different stage in the planning process for matters of economic activity, and that would be the wrong approach for the Bill.

Amendment 189 was tabled by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I want to advantage good design, and I share his view and that of others about design review panels. They can have a positive effect on the outcome of the processes that local authorities go through. However, the previous Government did not introduce such a requirement in all their different planning Bills—I dare say they did so advisedly—and my concern is that the one way to turn something that can be appreciated and make a positive addition to scrutiny into something that is resented and imposed on people is to make it mandatory and a burden that people reluctantly have to deal with. To succeed, the initiative has to be something that authorities such as the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley referred take up willingly and voluntarily. It has to enjoy the volition and good will of the community. I would like to see more of that. Imposing the proposal as a requirement would almost instantly result in it losing its positive connotations and becoming resented.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The right hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that he wants this to be voluntary rather than obligatory. I put it to him that this is a different context. It was voluntary under the previous Government, because CABE was in place as a large and powerful body that was feared and listened to by developers. If developers felt that their scheme was likely to attract a negative CABE report, they were usually willing to explore alternatives. Given the scaling down of CABE’s capacity under the present Government, there will not be such influence. In such circumstances, there needs to be an additional impetus if we are to avoid developers simply saying, “We can avoid that. We can ignore that. We can get away with the scheme we are putting forward and not push up design quality.”

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The solution that the right hon. Gentleman advocates would not mitigate what he regards as the potential for reduced adherence to good practice in design. I want to advantage good design. As members of the Committee know, the consultation to invite suggestions as to what should be in the new national planning policy framework closed just yesterday. That framework seems to be a place in which good design ought to be advantaged, and applicants ought to know that if they submit a high-quality design, they are more likely to obtain planning permission than if they do not. I understand that representations and suggestions were made in the consultation as to how that might be achieved. This is unfinished business, but this is not the right place in the Bill to deal with it—this whole aspect is about developers consulting the local community. In any case, making something mandatory and therefore likely to be resented is the wrong approach.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I shall confine my remarks to the high street issue. I do not accept the Minister’s point that amendment 152 would introduce unnecessary delay or additional bureaucracy. After all, we are talking about pre-application consultation and, crucially, the community having high-quality information that it can rely on to inform the consultative process. Such information is key to the integrity of a consultative process.

There are some examples of where that has happened already, but, in looking to the future, given the very welcome undertaking that the Committee will address the “high street first” policy in the context of the national planning policy framework, we shall return to the issue around making a success of consultative processes, including pre-consultation processes. I shall therefore withdraw the amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Before my hon. Friend withdraws his amendment, may I respond briefly to the Minister’s point? He argued that amendment 189 would impose an unreasonably burdensome duty and said that there were other ways of achieving the objective. May I remind him that the clause I propose amending is one that sets out the Government’s view of the obligations on developers to carry out pre-application consultation? That clause, which is directive, states:

“A person subject to the duty imposed by subsection (1) must, in complying with that subsection, have regard to the advice (if any) given by the local planning authority about local good practice.”

It includes a prescriptive obligation.

My amendment would simply add the obligation to have regard to the view of a local design review panel, if there is one—it does not say that there must be one. It simply refers to the advice of such a panel and builds on the Government’s wording. I therefore do not accept the Minister’s argument that it is unduly prescriptive.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 103

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

I do not want to detain the Committee for very long. My comments will be slightly technical, but I would like the ministerial team to consider and provide feedback on an important issue.

I understand the purpose of the clause. As the Government are concerned about delays in the enforcement of planning control, they wish to ensure that those who seek retrospective planning permission for unauthorised development do not have the opportunity to delay enforcement by running concurrent—or indeed consecutive—planning and enforcement notice appeals. That is a worthy aim, as I am sure that Members on both sides of the Committee will agree, especially those who have seen how developers use the system to frustrate the local planning committee and avoid enforcement action.

The clause will insert proposed new section 70C into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which will give local planning authorities the power to decline to determine planning applications if the giving of planning permission involves granting planning permission in respect of the whole or any part of the matter specified in the enforcement notice that constituted a breach of planning control. The clause also amends section 174 of the 1990 Act by inserting proposed new subsections (2A) and (2B), as well as amending section 177 to remove the deemed application provisions unless an applicant specifies that he requires planning permission for the development set out in the enforcement notice. I think that the clause gives rise to the danger of unintended consequences, so I beg the Committee’s indulgence as I explain why.

As I understand it, if the provisions become law, the local planning authority would be able to use the powers under proposed new subsection (2A) of section 174 of the 1990 Act to issue an enforcement notice within a certain period—usually about six weeks, although it can be up to six months—after receiving a planning application for retrospective permission, and then use the power of proposed new section 70C to refuse to determine the application. The applicant would not be able to appeal against the enforcement notice on ground (a), given the strict wording of the provisions, and would be restricted to making an appeal on ground (g) or perhaps on grounds (b) to (f), but would not be able to challenge the planning merits of the proposed development. That is the crux of the matter, because it would result in there being no determination of the planning merits under section 78 or proposed new subsection (2A) of section 174. I am curious as to whether that is what the Department and Ministers intend. I realise that this is a highly technical matter and that Ministers might wish for urgent inspiration or want to take advice and answer the point later.

We all know that retrospective planning applications are a common feature of development control. For instance, house owners may erect a fence adjacent to a road or build a structure on their property without realising that planning permission is required. At present, local authorities know that if they serve an enforcement notice, it automatically triggers a deemed planning application for that development, so they may invite home owners to submit applications for retrospective planning permission rather than issue enforcement notices. They often deal with the matter by imposing conditions or alterations rather than having the matter go straight to appeal.

That is a proven and established method of development control. Crucially, it allows the planning merits of the development in question to be considered and dealt with in an efficient, fair and cost-effective way, without exposing the householder to appeals and possible prosecution. That saves local planning authorities huge sums in costs that they would otherwise incur by having to take cases to appeal.

I am more than happy to be proved wrong, but I understand that the effect of the clause would be that if a home owner realised his error and put in a planning application, the local planning authority would have the power—merely by issuing an enforcement notice—to prevent the planning merits of the development being determined. As a consequence, the householder would be required to remove the fence or structure without any determination whatsoever of whether that structure or fence was in keeping with the planning merits that the local authority was seeking to uphold. Indeed, although this is probably a worst case scenario, the householder could be subject to criminal prosecution for breach of the enforcement notice—again, without ever had had the planning merits of what he had done being properly considered.

Under section 189B of the 1990 Act, local planning authorities have the power to seek injunctions to restrain a breach of planning control, or a perceived breach, instead of issuing an enforcement notice. Under the Bill, members of the public could be subjected to High Court injunctions without any right to a determination of the planning merits of what they wish to achieve. In most cases, the best way to defend claims under section 189B would be for the householder to show that he had sought retrospective planning permission and that the planning application had a realistic chance of success. Given the proposals in the Bill, however, such a course would not be open to a householder, save perhaps with the agreement of the local planning authority that it would not exercise its new powers.

If the Bill is passed in its current form, to defend a claim for an injunction, the householder will have to persuade the court that the local planning authority should serve an enforcement notice before seeking an injunction, thus giving them the opportunity to appeal and to have their case determined on its planning merits. However, there would be absolutely no guarantee that that argument would be successful. In the event that the court was persuaded by such an argument, it would lead to yet further delay and expense, all of which, I am sure, is contrary to what the Government wish to achieve under the clause.

I humbly suggest that the provisions should be altered to ensure that the power cannot be exercised when the result would be that no planning determination would be made either under section 78 or under section 174 of the 1990 Act in respect of the matters specified in the enforcement notice. That would be in line with the Government’s aim that an applicant should not have the opportunity to delay enforcement by running concurrent or consecutive planning and enforcement notice appeals. However, it would safeguard the right that the planning merits in regard to a breach of planning control would be determined before a householder could be exposed to possible criminal prosecutions and further injunctions.

Another unintended consequence of the clause will be to stop the planning merits being re-argued on an enforcement notice when things had changed. As the clause is drafted, the decision of a local planning authority to decline to determine an application under proposed new section 70C could be taken to judicial review if it failed to take account of the fact that circumstances had materially changed—planning is often a movable feast. However, if a planning appeal had been determined and dismissed and the local planning authority chose to issue an enforcement notice, there would be no option to have the planning merits considered, even if there had been a material change in circumstances. There could be no judicial review of the inability to seek permission under ground (a) in an appeal against an enforcement notice.

That issue could arise if a new policy—a development plan or a national policy—came into force, or if a material consideration had changed substantially, such as if a family bought a property that was the subject of a recent refusal of planning permission but significant personal circumstances, such a sick child with special needs, might require the planning merits to be looked at again under an application for adaptive measures. Another example would be if planning permission had been refused on technical grounds that were capable of resolution, such as the lack of a flood risk assessment, an environmental survey or an appropriate section 106 agreement. The clause would prevent such matters from being reconsidered once an enforcement notice was issued, but I do not think that that is what the Government are trying to achieve.

In practice, I suspect that when faced with such an issue, a planning inspector would lengthen the compliance period to more than two years to ensure that the appropriate planning merits could be heard at a later stage. Unfortunately, that is a Kafkaesque approach, but it would be an effect of the changes. If the clause is passed without looking at this issue again, there is a real risk that we will take away important rights and safeguards that have been inherent in our planning system. Furthermore, it likely to give rise to confusion, yet more contentious litigation and the possibility of a challenge to its compatibility with the European convention on human rights.

The combined effect of the proposed changes to section 177 will be to take away the deemed application protection and to require the applicant to specify that he wishes to have planning merits for the development determined when he appeals or he loses his right. The safeguard of the Planning Inspectorate reminding the applicant of that right when he is asked to pay a fee will go. All that is unlikely to cause a problem to the professionally represented client, but it could cause a severe problem to a householder trying to represent themselves in the system.

I apologise to colleagues for the fact that my speech has been very technical, but I ask the Ministers to take some advice on these provisions and their interplay, and to see whether there are unintended consequences that can be avoided at a later stage.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

In view of the fact that the chapter on enforcement deals quite extensively with amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, have Ministers given any thought to beefing up sections 215 and 216 of that Act? I am sure that they know exactly what those sections do. In essence, they give local authorities the power to intervene and serve notice upon owners of ill-maintained, neglected or badly damaged buildings that are causing a detriment to the amenity of surrounding buildings and properties. It is extremely useful legislation for local authorities on behalf of the public they serve, but it is often frustrating, given the length of time it takes them to enforce such actions against property owners.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

On section 215 notices, does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not just the length of time taken, but the lack of teeth that the notices have in the face of recalcitrance by large property owners?

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

I agree. In many cases, the serving of the notice in itself can illicit some action by an owner to tidy up a building, but where the law is well known and the use of the law is well practised by those who are in the know, unfortunately, the outcome is often as my hon. Friend describes. It is also a matter of some regret that public bodies are often the worst offenders. Land owned by Network Rail and often that owned by the British Rail residuary body is exempt from these provisions, and that land also contains some of the most badly maintained civil engineering infrastructure, which becomes a blight on the urban landscape through which the railway passes. I am delighted that the main east coast railway line runs through my constituency, but along it there is a range of very badly maintained pieces of civil engineering. Although I welcome many of the provisions in the 1990 Act, will the Minister consider giving local authorities extra powers in that respect?

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I thank my hon. Friend for referring to section 215, which was the subject of a recent Adjournment debate that I secured on behalf of my constituents to which the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst responded. A major property owner, Criterion Capital, owns a large number of properties around central London, including the Trocadero at Piccadilly circus. Unfortunately for me and my constituents, it also owns the Brown and Root tower which stands outside Colliers Wood tube station. Anyone who lives in south London will know that tower. On various TV programmes, it has been voted the most hated building in London and the third most hated building in the country. It is a big black tower in the middle of a south London suburb. It has been empty for several years. Its safety condition is quite appalling and the application of a section 215 notice has made it worse, as green netting has been hung up on two sides of the building to prevent falling masonry. Although it now might be slightly safer for people passing, it looks considerably worse.

The owner of that property is particularly litigious and well connected, and it stands against residents who rail against it and a local authority that, with the best will in the world, is terrified of the litigious nature of the company. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead suggested, we have got short-term improvements by issuing section 215 notices. We have managed to have boarding put up around the half-demolished, multi-storey car park at the rear of the building, preventing people from getting access to the masonry around the place, which could be used as missiles in all sorts of fights. We have also managed to get the grass cut at the front. Ultimately, there is no sanction for the council or local residents to force that landlord to be a good neighbour. It does that in my constituency, in Brixton, in Dulwich and in Streatham—it is a blight to south-west London. Somehow, somebody should have the power to do something about it.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to hon. Members for their well-informed and erudite contributions, which take me back to the heady days when I had just been called to the Bar and had a temporary job as a planning lawyer at the old Department of the Environment when it was still in Marsham street towers. I do not know whether it was that or the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay raises that led me to conclude that criminal practice was rather more straightforward and edifying. However, this is a serious point, and I will attempt to deal with it.

I hope to reassure my hon. Friend first and then I will come to the other points. The proposal is not intended to restrict the rights of those who are genuinely seeking retrospective permission. We accept that applications for retrospective planning permission are a legitimate part of the planning system. Sometimes, they are necessary, because we are all aware of a person who in good faith genuinely made an error and carried out a development without realising that permission was needed. The obvious example is the person who extends a house and goes beyond permitted development rights. They should have had planning permission, and they apply for retrospective permission to regularise the situation. I do not think anyone has a problem with that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay rightly divines, the objective in the clause is to tighten up the rules where an abuse takes place—precisely the point that he referred to—with either the tandem or consecutive use of retrospective applications and appeals against enforcement notices. The provision is intended to apply to all classes of development. We have all seen examples; I have seen one in my constituency, where a development was built not in accordance with the plans and caused significant detriment.

The sort of people who do that are ruthless and determined, and money is involved. The local authority is often frustrated because that method is used to spin out the length of time. Sometimes, it can be a deterrent to local authorities to taking enforcement action in the interests of the broader community. That is important, but I recognise that safeguards for applicants are needed, because by its nature any planning regime involves an interference with property rights. It is right for people to have the ability to seek permission under those circumstances. That is why we seek to limit more effectively, with the proposed new section in the 1990 Act, the use of retrospective permission, so that it is genuinely focused on the honest mistake.

The Secretary of State used the phrase that the intention should be to protect the gormless but deter the greedy. I might put it a little more kindly and say to protect the innocent or the not terribly well informed, and to deter the unscrupulous. That is a cockney version, as opposed to the Secretary of State’s Yorkshire version. Against that background, perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend that proposed new section 70C would only apply if a retrospective planning application were served after the enforcement notice. It would prevent that tandem approach.

My hon. Friend rightly refers to the situation of someone being honest about an error, getting in touch with the planning authority and the case being resolved amicably by imposing conditions, or something of that kind. It is inconceivable that enforcement action would be taken in such circumstances. That would only happen if, having been enforced against, the developer came along and sought to spin out the process by submitting a retrospective application that was intended to bite. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter carefully.

On non-determination, the clause does not contain a requirement for the local planning authority to decline to determine; it will have a discretion to do so. In turn, such a discretion must be exercised rationally and in accordance with the normal public law principles, which would provide a safeguard if there were a wilful and perverse refusal to determine by the local authority. I hope that hon. Members will understand the thinking behind the clause.

I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Gateshead and for Mitcham and Morden for the points that they have made. I enjoyed keeping the hon. Lady and perhaps one other person company into the late hours dealing with the tower in Colliers Wood. I understand their points. Perhaps we can reflect on them, and I am happy to discuss the issues further with the hon. Gentleman to see whether there is an appropriate way forward. The Government’s instinct has been that, properly used, the powers should be adequate, but I take on board the points that they have made, and I understand the hon. Lady’s experience of her local authority. If there is a sensible formulation to improve the matter, we will be prepared to look at it. This part of the Bill may not necessarily be the best vehicle to achieve that objective, however.

I shall look carefully at the infrastructure in Gateshead and at the east coast main line, when I visit the Local Government Association’s fire conference next week. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gateshead will point out to me the bits that I should be carefully keeping an eye on, so that I can say that I have seen a practical treatise in the consequences. With that promise and in that spirit, I hope that hon. Members will accept the clause.

Clause 105

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

We welcome many of the changes on enforcement. However, a number of concerns about the proposed time-limited immunity for planning enforcement have been expressed to us by a range of organisations. Historically—let alone what might happen in future as a consequence of the 28% cuts to local authority budgets over the next four years—enforcement has tended to be underfunded in local authorities. Detecting breaches can therefore take time.

The clause’s time-limited immunity provision could be regarded as legitimising actions as long as they remain undetected for a certain period of time. We would therefore welcome clarification from the Government. Does the time-limited immunity for enforcement regarding advertisements in proposed new subsection (7) not weaken current controls?

Finally, we all believe that proper approval should be given. In certain circumstances, that approval is circumvented, which we do not want to encourage by default, so we would welcome clarification from the Ministers.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. The clause seeks to strengthen and rationalise our position, in particular against an abuse that, although not common, is serious when it occurs—the deliberate concealment of breaches of planning law. We have heard about two well-publicised examples: the case of the person who received permission for an agricultural barn but equipped it as a house inside, and the issue of straw bales. Here we seek to deal with time limits and penalties.

Most enforcement offences, such as failing to comply with an enforcement notice or a stop notice, already carry maximum penalties in the courts—£20,000 in a magistrates court or an unlimited fine on indictment, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington will know. Some offences that are only triable summarily carry lesser penalties. The Government’s intention in the clause is to ensure that failing to comply with a breach of a condition notice attracts what we think is a requisite and appropriate level of penalty, hence the proposal to raise it from a level 3 fine to a level 4 fine.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point relates to how we are seeking to make it easier for local planning authorities to bring prosecutions. Sometimes there is difficulty in establishing with clarity when an offence was committed. That is the reason why we are adopting the time limit of six months. That is the normal time limit for bringing prosecutions in a magistrates court, so there is no departure from the normal procedures that apply to a traffic offence or any other summary-only procedure in a magistrates court; it is simply an alignment. We are seeking to make the process easier, because the exact date upon which an offence was committed may not be apparent for some time. Many such offences are termed immediate offences, and we want to avoid a situation where someone may escape prosecution for damaging behaviour by that technicality. That is the idea behind the provision, and I think it will assist the hon. Gentleman.

Clause 107

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Infrastructure planning is extraordinarily important at both the local and national levels of Government. At the local level, crucially, it includes schools, hospitals and public transportation. At the national level, it concerns energy, such as new-build nuclear power stations, roads and railways, and intellectual capital. Efficient and quality infrastructure planning is a key component of national growth. The adequate provision of high-quality infrastructure should be seen as an important priority at all levels of government.

The Infrastructure Planning Commission was introduced in 2008 under the Town Planning Act 1990 and began receiving its first applications in March 2009. As I have said previously, I was involved in some of the discussions leading up to the establishment of the IPC, not least because of the difficult debate about how we could achieve a new generation of new-build nuclear power stations, avoiding some of the absurd delays inherent in the planning system as it was.

Under the Bill the Government propose to abolish the IPC and pass decision-making power regarding major infrastructure projects back to Ministers via the new infrastructure planning unit. Evidence shows that the abolition of the IPC has raised a great deal of concern and uncertainty with developers and local authorities. If we listen to the voice of the private sector organisations, such as the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, all have expressed in varying ways their dismay at the decision.

Do the Government accept that subjecting final decisions on major infrastructure projects to the approval of the Secretary of State poses the threat of politicising the wrong kind of infrastructure planning and creating unnecessary delay? Infrastructure is too important to be subject to the wrong sort of political agendas, short-termism, populism and no regard to the best long-term interests of the country. The public interest and the best long-term interests must be the priority.

Infrastructure should be an issue that transcends all political parties. We hope there will be consensus about that, including here in Committee. To that end, on important infrastructure development, let me be the first to declare my solidarity with the Secretary of State for Transport in nobly pressing ahead with High Speed 2, determined as he is to face down “southern comfort nimbyism” in favour of something that will be good news for the country, particularly the development of the midlands and the great regions of the north. I wish him well.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I hear my hon. Friend’s remarks with interest. Will he tell us whether he thinks the Secretary of State for Transport will have greater luck in pursuing his route for High Speed 2 than his predecessor had with the original proposed route for the Channel tunnel rail link?

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The Secretary of State is bound to encounter some well-heeled opposition to his plans. Indeed, yesterday I did the programme “The Politics Show” and most unusually, Kelvin MacKenzie and I were agreeing on that very issue—a prime example of the representation of the shires saying, “Not in our back yard; not in our county. You can find another route”. If anyone can work out how to get from London to Birmingham and onwards to the great regions of the north without going through somewhere in the south, perhaps they could get in contact with the Secretary of State for Transport.

The abolition of a commission that has only been up and running since last March adds considerable uncertainty to a system that planners, developers and public authorities have only recently learnt to come to terms with. That is not helpful at a time when major infrastructure projects are of vital importance to the nation as a whole. Typically, major infrastructure projects are highly technical. Crucially, they need a long-term vision and, as I have described it, one that is in the best long-term interests of the general public and the country.

To that end, the IPC was established as a body of people with precisely that technical knowledge and a sound understanding of infrastructure planning. Most importantly, it is an independent body able objectively to make decisions in the best long-term interests of the country and the public, in accordance with a clear framework laid down by Parliament. However, as the Federation of Small Businesses warns,

“The reversion of the decisions to Ministers risk the politicisation of the process”.

That politicisation poses a huge threat to what was regarded as a strength—independently planned infrastructure planning.

Roger Culcheth, the Federation of Small Businesses’ local government policy chairman, said that the politicisation of infrastructure planning will lead to a

“weakening of the position under what was regarded as a very new but useful commission”.

Under the proposed system, major infrastructure projects face potentially significant delays, and considerable uncertainty surrounds the time lines for development consent decisions, with people in the major infrastructure field believing that at least three months’ further delay will inevitably be built in.

Among the establishments and locations concerned, Gatwick airport, which is particularly affected by major infrastructure policy, has called the Government’s proposals, “disappointing.” Similarly, Birmingham chamber of commerce has called the abolition of the IPC, “a blow to business” and

“a huge disappointment, reintroducing delay into nationally significant major infrastructure.”

Those organisations have made direct representations to the Government. How do the Government respond and, crucially, how can they guarantee that the decision will not lead to further delays in the planning system?

Finally, the current arrangements are clear about the processes, the criteria and the time that will be taken, so can the Minister put his hand on his heart and guarantee that the proposed arrangements will not lead to further and unnecessary delay?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

We are at a point when UK plc badly needs investment of the sort represented by large infrastructure projects, and it is deeply worrying that we should completely reverse an arrangement that is just bedding down. This is a time when it is best to let things move forward sensibly, so that there is confidence and certainty for people out there. It is not surprising that the private sector has expressed with almost one voice its concerns about the scrapping of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, because at this time the uncertainty that that presents is not welcome.

I fully support the thrust of the Bill, with powers being taken from the Secretary of State and national politicians and moved down to the ground to allow the grass roots to deliver, but it worries me that power over infrastructure decisions will be taken from an independent body and given to the Secretary of State. That power is best left independent, because that is in tune with the grass roots and with the thrust of the Bill. There is a danger of decisions being politicised, which often leads to prevarication and delay—the last thing we need at the moment, or in the future.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address these issues. I completely agree that the provision of a fast-track, dependable process for consenting national infrastructure is of prime importance. Our reforms to the Infrastructure Planning Commission are designed to improve it rather than to introduce delays. We will increase its dependability and, if we can, increase the speed of decision making, and I can certainly, hand on heart, give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington the assurance that he asks for on that.

The essential problem with the arrangements the Labour party introduced late in its term of office is that they lack democratic accountability—all accountability—and that view is widely shared across the House. The Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee was one of the principal voices warning against the lack of legitimacy, and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has made some strong interventions on the issue. It is not acceptable for major decisions affecting our communities and our country to be taken by a person or group of people with no accountability to Parliament, Ministers or the people in this country. That cannot be right. A degree of ultimate accountability for important decisions is needed.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington has a history in this field from his work in the nuclear industry on the trade union side. For 18 months before the election, I was the shadow Energy Secretary and I spent a lot of time with the energy companies that formed the first wave of prime users of the provisions. We took great care to ensure that the changes that we made not only would not introduce a scintilla of doubt about the continuity of the arrangements, but would remove one of the most significant risks to the necessary projects covered by the regime, including nuclear power stations—the threat of judicial review, a significant risk due to the lack of democratic accountability in the arrangements. National planning statements that are merely presented to the House rather than being ratified by Parliament, and appointed decision makers who have no reference to any democratic mandate, create a significant risk that decisions ostensibly taken by the IPC will be dragged through the courts for many years.

I think that we made some progress on satisfying people that it would be beneficial to root such important decisions in clear democratic accountability, which gives them greater standing before the courts than decisions taken, perhaps inappropriately, by administrative bodies. That is absolutely the direction of our reforms.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

I could not help thinking of an analogy. The same argument could be used regarding the Monetary Policy Committee. Following the logic of everything that the Minister just said about the planning context, we could look at the economic management of the country and say, “There’s no accountability to Parliament. The Monetary Policy Committee is off doing its own thing; it’s completely independent.” However, I think we all accept that there is a rationale for having the committee in that form. It is analogous. We must think about how to manage such things, because there is a real danger. Once infrastructure planning becomes tainted by the political process, the planning of important projects that are absolutely in the national interest could stagnate.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I do not believe that the measures will introduce such politicisation. That issue was clearly flagged in both parties’ manifestos when we were in opposition, due to great concern about the lack of democratic accountability in the arrangements. If hon. Members look at our reforms and how we have translated them into practice, they will see that the best elements of the system that was introduced—I agree with the previous Government that it was necessary to introduce a new regime—maintain and build on that fast-track process, including by creating a dedicated unit to scrutinise the decisions taken there, subject to the same timetables.

The two principal reforms are, first, that the national planning statement will be ratified by Parliament to give it the standing that we think it requires; and, secondly, that the ultimate decision will be taken within the same time frame or sooner by the relevant Secretary of State, rather than by someone unelected. We are absolutely clear about that.

In terms of business commentators on the matter, if hon. Members talk to the leading firms in the energy sector, which are the most likely to make use of the provisions the most quickly, they will find, as I have said in conversations with them, that we have been careful to ensure that there is no possibility of delay in such crucial projects. The arrangements that we have put in place will introduce a change that I hope will be permanent; I hope that we will have settled on the right model for our major infrastructure projects. There will be a dedicated unit and projects will operate to strict time frames. As now, it will be necessary to put in the information in advance, so that proposals can be considered in the round, and the Secretary of State will take a decision subject to the existing timetables or faster. If we can squeeze some time out, consistent with due process, we would like the process to be even quicker, but at the very least it will be subject to the same timetable as the one that currently prevails.

The system will give applicants confidence that an appropriate degree of expertise will be considering their case. There will be enough continuity with the existing arrangements to ensure that no skills are lost. The new system will not only correct a matter of principle—the democratic flaw—but in so doing it will give greater certainty in the courts to the decisions that will result from this important set of arrangements.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The history of planning as it relates to major infrastructure projects is, sadly, one where time and again politicisation of the wrong kind has been the enemy of sensible, long-term decision making. I remember more than 20 years ago the chairman of Electricité de France, when he was here in England, talking about the process in France. Representatives of the British nuclear industry asked him, “Why is it that in your country from inception to coming on stream typically takes five to seven years, when in our country it typically takes between 12 and 14 years? Do you not have problems with your planning process?” The typically Napoleonic response, referring to “les intérêts de l’état”, was, “If you drain the marsh, do you consult the frogs?” I am not sure that we would quite go down that path in Britain, because public acceptability is important in the planning process generally and in infrastructure planning in particular.

On limiting legal challenge, it is optimistic to suggest that the Secretary of State, who has been known to be subject to legal challenge, is less likely to be subject to legal challenge than the IPC.

Certainty for investors is of the highest importance, because typically it is not possible to engage the private sector to make major and long-term commitments regarding infrastructure projects, particularly major ones, unless there is a degree of certainty. A key element of that is timetables. If the Minister’s assurance to the House means that under the proposed arrangements there will be no delays, or at the very least the same time frame will be observed, that is a welcome statement.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I feel that three things need to be said in response to the Minister’s remarks. It is simply not true that the previous system lacked democratic accountability. The system provided for that democratic accountability at the earlier stage, when the national policy statements were prepared. We can have an argument about whether the statements should be approved by Parliament or simply presented to Parliament, but there was a clear understanding that at that point, when the policy was being framed, the accountable body should be the Minister and Parliament should certainly have to approve that document.

There was an element of democratic accountability. The problem with the Government’s configuration is that it puts that at the end of the process and, as the Minister knows only too well, that is an inevitable recipe for delay. How will a Secretary of State take through an unpopular recommendation—say, to build a new airport—when there is a huge body of his own supporters saying, “No, no, no! Don’t do it.”?

We heard what the CBI had to say in the evidence session. It was extremely nervous that this was going to be a recipe for delay. I asked the CBI’s witness whether she knew of any instance in which the Secretary of State had taken a decision within three months, and she did not know of any at all. I asked that question rather carefully, having prepared the ground. I am well aware that there has been no instance in which a Secretary of State has taken a decision within that time frame.

The Minister’s bland assurance that decisions will be just as quick as under the IPC is worthless. Let me tell him why—it will be painful for him to hear. Judicial review. He accused me of chutzpah in an earlier sitting. With his record of already having had one of his decisions overturned on judicial review, it is probably not a very good example to take; none the less, let me put it to him. If there is the slightest element of doubt on the part of his officials that the Secretary of State could be subject to judicial review for overturning a decision coming from the body that replaces the IPC, those officials will insist on that decision being checked, checked again and lawyer-proofed to ensure that that does not happen. That takes time. The IPC, or its replacement body, will have already gone through that same process: it will have looked at the issue, consulted the lawyers and tried to ensure that its decision was not subject to judicial review, and the whole thing will happen again. When there are a number of baying Members of Parliament who do not like the policy and who are pressing the Minister in a series of private meetings and saying, “Don’t do this,” there is enormous scope for procedural process failures that would lead to judicial review.

The Government are introducing a very risky policy. A sensible way forward was to accept the previous framework, require the national policy statement to be approved by Parliament as the democratic accountability at the start of the process, and then respect the procedure for the IPC to determine the outcome in line with that democratically agreed policy. That would have given us a fast-track procedure, certainty about infrastructure provision and taken out the really serious risk, which I am afraid to say that the Minister has built into the system, of further delay and the risk of judicial review.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I shall respond briefly. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington has raised the matter, I shall have to say that we are very clear about the contrast between different systems. We believe that we should consult the frogs. That is fundamental to the way in which we approach things. People should have a chance to have their say, and we do this deliberately.

To reply to the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the key requirement is that there are statutory time lines. This is not something that can sit on the desk of the Secretary of State for as long as he wants to have it there. We are subjecting Ministers to the same time frame that governs appointees to the IPC. We are doing that deliberately to provide that certainty, and we are looking into the possibility of advancing that. That is the right approach.

I invite Members to talk to the energy companies that have some major live applications. Those companies will, I think, talk about how we have listened very carefully to them through our consultation papers and how we have made our proposals reflect the issues they raised. One of the leading companies, EDF, is prepared to make the investment that everyone in this Committee sees is necessary for our country in the future.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The energy companies that I have spoken to during the past few months are very anxious about the changes. That is what they consistently tell me, but I am heartened by some of the things that the Minister has said. Is he giving a commitment that the new processes will be as speedy as the processes in the IPC are intended to be? If they are not as speedy and as effective, can he give us a commitment that the Government will review them?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I can give that commitment.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

For the record, I too have spoken to various energy companies. They are extremely nervous about what is being proposed. In our view, the wrong approach has been taken, but in those circumstances, we need to give them maximum reassurance. The reassurance just sought from the Minister will be very welcome indeed, especially to the energy companies.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am absolutely determined that the provisions establish the primacy of the timetable. That is the approach that we are taking to subject ourselves to the same disciplines. I undertake that we will look for ways to advance those time frames, if possible, but in no circumstances will we countenance a situation in which it will take longer than under the previous system.

Schedule 13

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment 239, in schedule 13, page 319, line 20, at end insert—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 240, in schedule 13, page 319, line 20, at end insert—

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The threshold for most types of projects considered nationally significant is a clear numerical figure, but that is not currently the case for highway and railway projects. Although the thresholds can be amended by statutory instrument, the Bill at least provides an opportunity to discuss the issue. The threshold of 10 km in length is proposed simply to initiate that debate. In the interests of simplifying the process, I would welcome the Government’s consideration on whether numerical figures should be applied to highway and railway projects.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I was curious about the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, because they seem to go against the discussion that we have just had about being very clear that certain types of developments and proposals fall clearly into the category by which they will be looked at by the future major infrastructure unit. The essential point about transport networks is that they are networks. A development may be small in terms of its geographic and spatial coverage, but may have crucial importance to the working of the network as a whole.

Whether it is for the highways or railways network, we think it is right that it should be possible to have the same degree of dependable, fast-track consideration for something that may be small in physical development terms, but may be of crucial importance to the functioning of the whole network, be it the motorway or railway network. It is right to give the opportunity, which is extended by the major infrastructural planning regimes, to cover everything to do with those major network developments.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment 246, in schedule 13, page 320, line 35, at end insert—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 242, in schedule 13, page 326, line 2, at end insert—

Amendment 243, in schedule 13, page 327, leave out line 25 and insert—

Amendment 167, in schedule 13, page 327, line 30, leave out ‘(8)’ and insert ‘(9)’.

Amendment 244, in schedule 13, page 327, line 33, after ‘must’, insert ‘(a)’.

Amendment 245, in schedule 13, page 327, line 35, at end insert—

Amendment 238, in schedule 13, page 328, line 14, at end insert—

Amendment 247, in schedule 13, page 330, line 42, at end insert—

Amendment 241, in clause 117, page 103, line 23, at end insert—

New Clause 16—Ability to waive compliance with procedures—

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Major infrastructure decisions will once again be taken by the Secretary of State. These are probing amendments designed to test the Government on whether they are prepared to simplify that process. They will help to speed up the process and reduce the risk of delays occurring as a result of the Government’s decisions, which is an issue we have addressed in an earlier debate. I will explain the purpose of each amendment, and I ask the Government to consider each amendment on its merits.

Amendment 238 seeks to clarify whether draft development consent orders submitted to the IPC/MIPU can be amended as part of the decision on the application. The wording of section 114 of the Planning Act 2008 is causing some anxiety among promoters of infrastructure projects as to whether consent orders can be amended. We would welcome the Government’s clarification. Clearly it would be preferable that this small technical change could be made during the process, which would not change the substantive nature of the application.

Amendment 241 seeks to clarify whether requirements—in other words, conditions—attached to development consent orders can be discharged by local authorities and whether they can be appealed in the same way as conditions attached to planning permissions. That is not clear in section 120 of the Planning Act 2008. It would seem sensible and more efficient to allow a local authority to discharge the requirements. Otherwise, the MIPU could be burdened with unnecessary work that could be better carried out by local authorities. An example of such a requirement might be the landscaping around the site of a new power station, which would be better overseen by a local authority. Amendments 242 and 243 seek to provide clarity about the deadlines for the MIPU and the Secretary of State. These are issues that we referred to earlier, when we discussed the recommendation that the MIPU have a three-month deadline, followed by a three-month deadline for the Secretary of State. However, the deadlines are calculated by reference to the deadline for the previous stage rather than when the stage is actually completed, so no time is saved if a stage is completed early. The amendments would start time running from the actual completion of the previous stage in each case. In light of what has been said earlier, I hope that the Government will welcome these amendments.

Amendments 244 and 245 seek to increase the incentives to ensure that decision making is carried out on time. The Bill removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to notify all interested parties if the three-month deadline for decision making is to be extended. These amendments would reinstate that requirement, to increase the incentives for decision making to be carried out on time.

Then there is new clause 16. At present, the regime is one-size-fits-all. In other words every project, no matter how large or small, must go through the full process. The new clause is based on the Transport and Works Act 1992 and it would allow the Secretary of State to waive procedural requirements in some cases. Like the other amendments in this group, the new clause will contribute towards fast-tracking of decisions, so that we can deliver the infrastructure that the country needs.

Amendment 246 would relax the acceptance criteria for applications for examination. Some people consider that the application for examination is unduly strict and that it runs the risk of applications being rejected on purely technical grounds when there is no prejudice to any party. Amendment 246 would relax the strict requirements somewhat. The original Planning Act 2008 regime did not allow offences to be included in development consent orders, as concerns had been expressed that decisions were being made by an unelected body. The Bill reintroduces offence-making powers now that the Secretary of State will be making decisions, but only for a fixed list of offences. In the future, it is likely that relevant new offences will be created, or it might become desirable for further existing offences to be included in development consent orders.

Amendment 247 would allow the current fixed list to be amended by order. That might include trespassing on to the line in railway schemes, for example. I hope that the Government will consider the amendments, which seek to ensure that major infrastructure decisions are delivered as quickly and efficiently as possible.

In conclusion, the amendments are technical, and raise some important issues of concern, which have been brought to our attention by developers and investors. They make legitimate points, which should rightly be addressed.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. He has clearly enjoyed some technical advice from experts in the field, and of course we will consider the amendments. We are sympathetic to the direction of some of them. They are technical amendments, which will require us to reflect further on whether they can achieve the intended purposes.

I note with a certain irony that, with amendment 247, the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, urging a Henry VIII power on us. Earlier in the debate, he warned us that there were too many of them. A degree of pragmatism is entering the Opposition party.

I will reflect on all of the amendments now, but because they are technical, I undertake to go away, and consider each of them for later stages of the Bill. Amendment 246 would amend section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 by specifying that developers and applicants had to comply only substantially with the requirements contained in the Act. The proposal is intended to be a helpful relaxation or more generous interpretation of provisions, but it comes with the risk that “substantial” might itself become a contested word and could be subject to legal wrangling, having the opposite effect to the intention.

At the moment, the requirement, which some people regard as rather box-ticking, is to supply all the pieces of evidence, to show complete accordance with the requirements. That is at least clear—if everything is supplied, we have done what we need to do. Introducing the test of substantially complying would open the way to people who do not like the way things are going to say that something was not in compliance. That is why we will take advice, including from the current IPC and the expert bodies, to ensure that the direction is helpful and would not have unintended consequences.

Amendments 242 and 243 would have the effect, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the deadlines would be made by reference to the dates on which previous stages were completed, rather than the deadlines set out in legislation. Again, I completely understand and appreciate his point, and have sympathy with the intent. However, as drafted, the amendments risk having unwanted, adverse impacts. If the examination were completed or the report received later than the deadline, the examining authority would still have three months in which to make the decision. We want to keep the pressure on, so that unacceptable further delay is not introduced. Again, we will reflect on whether we can accommodate the issue in a different way, while achieving the desired effect.

Amendments 244 and 245 would reinstate a requirement of the 2008 Act, which the Bill will remove, for the notification of affected parties. However, the removal of the requirement has a simple, modern reason. The required method of notifying is a letter in the post, but a discretion to allow notification by e-mail, for example, might be more appropriate in the circumstances.

Amendment 238 would clarify the power of the Secretary of State to modify the proposals contained in an application when making the order. Our initial view is that the amendment is unnecessary. Orders made under the Planning Act would be made by the Secretary of State, who has the flexibility to make such changes, as necessary. Again, we will reflect on the technical aspects of that, to double-check that there is nothing that we have not seen.

Amendment 247 is a Henry VIII provision that would allow the Secretary of State by order to add, without restriction, to the list of offences covered. I note the Labour party’s change of view. We do not see any justification for the amendment—[Interruption.] The provisions are widely drawn, as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, says. We are being urged to follow a precedent that some might see as “a constitutional outrage,” to recall a phrase used in connection with such matters. Since we have made a commitment to review whether we have reached too frequently and readily for the great king’s inspiration, it would be the wrong approach to take.

Amendment 241 would clarify the power of local planning authorities to discharge requirements imposed by the Planning Act. We think that it is unnecessary, but I am happy to restate for the record that we expect the requirements to be discharged usually by local authorities; we see no change in that. Section 120 of the Planning Act places no restriction on who may discharge the requirements, but it would usually be appropriate for that to be done by the local planning authority.

New clause 16 would insert a new section into the 2008 Act, with the aim of allowing compliance with the requirements of the Act to be waived in certain circumstances. Again, we are not convinced that the new clause is necessary, but we will reflect and consult with the members of the current IPC and expert bodies on whether there is a need for greater flexibility.

I have sympathy with the intent behind the amendments, and some technical changes might be appropriate. We will have the opportunity on Report or more likely, given the technical content of the amendments, in the House of Lords, to accept any changes that are in keeping with the spirit in which they were tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, to speed up and to increase the certainty of the speed of those processes. With that in mind, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, so that we may come back to that subject later.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Although the Minister has not responded positively to all the issues raised, on several of them he has recognised the legitimacy of the concerns expressed. We are therefore content to proceed on the basis of there being further dialogue. The Minister will consult, including with members of the existing IPC, and we would welcome his advising us of the outcome of that process. My final point is that there will be some issues that are controversial and deserve debate on Report; others could sensibly be addressed at a later stage in the passage of the Bill, and I agree with the Minister that we can tease out such issues in the House of Lords.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 108

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment 237, in clause 108, page 89, line 16, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

At present, the Bill leaves on a case-by-case basis what to do with live applications once it is enacted. It would give more certainty to prospective and actual project plans if we state now that steps already taken have not been wasted and that the same personnel will consider live applications at the IPC abolition date. The amendment would ensure that applications that have already been through the approval process are not required to go back through it. It would provide greater certainty and be welcomed by those who have submitted applications. We hope that the Government will welcome the amendment.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I endorse the intention behind the amendment, and I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend there to be continuity—there will be no requirement for stages to be repeated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the current drafting gives the Secretary of State power to require that.

However, we think that the amendment could actually cause problems. There is a transition from one organisation to another. For example, there will no longer be commissioners, but employees of the MIPU. To require in statute the same person to continue the application when there will be changes to terms and conditions may create an impossibility because the post might have a different name. The amendment could frustrate the hon. Gentleman’s intention, but it is helpful as it allows me to put on the record that the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers are to ensure complete continuity and that there will be no repetition of stages that have been completed. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

Again, the Minister gives a helpful response. Those who have already submitted applications will welcome the complete confidence that there will be no repetition. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 109

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment 248, in clause 109, page 92, leave out lines 20 to 26.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 249, in clause 112, page 96, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 250, in clause 116, page 99, leave out lines 36 to 40.

Amendment 251, in clause 116, page 100, leave out lines 30 to 34.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

The current Planning Act regime imposes responsibilities on local authorities that are neighbours—at county or district level—of any local authorities where the project is to be situated. Given that the neighbours can be of either tier, that potentially involves a large number of local authorities, which in some parts of the country could be up to 40. Many of those local authorities might have no interest in the project, given its distance from them. The Bill rectifies that somewhat by removing the requirement to involve district level authorities that are neighbours of a county level host authority. That reduces the number of authorities involved, but it could still involve a large number, some of which might be many miles away. Amendments 248 to 251 would reduce the list to neighbours of a host district level or unitary authority only. That is a technical but important amendment that those involved in infrastructure projects believe would be appropriate. We support that view.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

We had a wide-ranging and helpful debate in an earlier Committee sitting on the general principle of larger than local, and we look forward to the next stage of discussions. The larger than local approach is key if we are to have sensible strategic planning, for all the reasons that the Committee has rehearsed at some length. The issue that arises is the remote as opposed to the involved local. We note what the Minister says. This is a probing amendment, designed to tease out the Government’s thinking. However, we hope that the provision will not create unreasonable difficulties in terms of remote local authorities with little interest in the proposed planning process. We ask that the Minister keep the matter under review and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 121

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I beg to move amendment 220, in clause 121, page 105, line 38, at end insert—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 221, in clause 121, page 105, line 41, after ‘(b)’, insert ‘or (c) or (d) or (e)’.

Amendment 222, in clause 121, page 106, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

I am pleased to be serving under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Amess. These are the first Opposition amendments to the housing part of the Bill, about which we have significant concerns. I suspect that there will be less consensus than there has been thus far. That may be down to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington is such a charming chap and extraordinarily persuasive. The Minister is obviously extremely amenable, but we may not find quite the same level of agreement.

Social housing is an integral part of the housing mix in this country. It provides secure and affordable accommodation for low-income families, for pensioners and for people who are unable to work or who cannot find a job and are vulnerable. Historically, it has been a safety net ensuring that the most disadvantaged in our community, as well as those in housing need for a very broad range of reasons, retained the human right to a roof over their head. Housing is a human right that was upheld by the Supreme Court in a ruling on Manchester City Council v. Pinnock, and more recently in the case of Hounslow LBC v. Powell, in which the judges who heard the appeal talked about “respecting a person’s home”.

Most importantly, social housing—I would prefer not to label it in that way—forms an essential part of many communities. They are homes, sometimes occupied by successive generations of the same family, which make up communities. Communities come in all shapes and sizes, but even those that may be seen by the outside world as difficult areas have a sense of strong community.

For example, there is a major regeneration under way in Swilly, or North Prospect, in my constituency. The residents want a strong say in how their community is shaped and they want to continue living there. A large number of those residents have lived there all their lives—through good times and bad, in employment and out of it.

The most recent statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government show that 17% of households in England live in social rented housing; for pensioner households, the figure rises to more than a fifth. About a quarter of ethnic minority households live in social housing. The median household income in 2007-08 in social housing was just £10,900 a year. Those living in social housing are not in a land of milk and honey, as is sometimes suggested. Many are vulnerable, many are poor and any changes to the social housing system need to be approached carefully and with sensitivity.

If only the Government had taken such an approach. The Government did not approach their desire for change by producing a draft Bill, or by fully consulting prior to the publication of this Bill. They launched a consultation on their proposals on how social housing was allocated, managed and financed on 22 November, in the pre-Christmas period—with the closing date just eight weeks later, on the Bill’s Second Reading. The consultation ran in parallel with the Bill at a time when most people would not be considering responding to consultations. It was rushed, like so much of what we are being asked to consider. This rushed, slap-dash approach to reforming something so critical to people’s well-being is an affront to the normal procedures that we would expect Ministers to adhere to in the pursuit of good government.

We would expect a consultation to last 12 weeks. That is the normal run of things, but the Government set aside only eight weeks. They were concerned more with sticking to their delayed legislative programme than with ensuring the best possible response from the public, stakeholders and tenants. As it is, the Government have embarked on the most radical reforms to social housing in history, with the media observing that the cumulative effect of the reforms is, as Inside Housing put it,

“the death of social housing”.

We know that the proposals in the Bill did not feature in manifestos; they were either opposed or denied by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Minister repeatedly put his name to early-day motions in the previous Parliament on matters which now fall within his portfolio. We want to understand at which point he changed his mind on the importance of security of tenure and affordability. Was it before or after he was appointed to a position within a Government led by a Tory Prime Minister?

We seek to amend the Government’s proposals in order to increase protections, defend the long-held rights of those in social housing and those who expect to move into social housing, and provide safeguards for homeless families within the framework of the Bill.

Clause 121 and related clauses effectively establish two waiting lists. Will they support tenants who wish to move and make space in the sector for those who need a new home, as the Government clearly believe, or will they, like a jigsaw puzzle with an extra piece, simply move the problem around the board? As one piece is replaced, another pops up. Unfortunately, the pieces that keep popping up are the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. The Minister must explain whether this is really just smoke and mirrors.

I cannot understand why, before drafting the Bill, the Government did not try to understand waiting lists properly: who is on them, how many are on them—owing to duplication, there is a lot of confusion about the precise number—why they are on the list and what their aspirations and expectations are. We know from research on the impact of choice-based lettings that the number of people on lists rose by 79% over four years in authorities operating the new system, while in other areas the number rose by only 40%. Such inexplicable outcomes must be considered when new allocations policy is being developed.

To change allocations policies without a proper review of how they operate is extraordinary, but I am afraid that it is par for the course for this Government. Some local authorities have done detailed work on their lists and have, as a result, cut the numbers by ensuring that applicants have good advice and are given pathways to alternatives. Can the Minister explain why waiting list registrations vary so enormously around the country? Why does Sheffield alone contribute 97,000 to the total—more than the figure for the whole of Wales in 2009? If he does not know, that will reinforce our case that the clause and this area of the Bill have been produced without a full understanding of the beast that they seek to change.

We all support the idea of local authorities undertaking a detailed assessment of their list and housing needs in their area—during debate on the planning section of the Bill, the importance of understanding housing need was discussed—and an awful lot of work by the Chartered Institute of Housing and other organisations supports that position. The last Labour Government favoured a housing options approach, which enabled housing departments better to understand applicants’ circumstances and needs.

Hard-pressed housing departments will find it difficult to do such work effectively now, particularly given the introduction of affordable rents, flexible tenancies and the need to know whether a tenant’s income has increased, which will obviously be required as part of ongoing assessment due to the cuts to local government. With that in mind, I support the amendments.

Amendment 220 is designed to ensure that the rights of people already living in social housing are protected. The Government have said time and again that existing tenants’ rights will not be changed. We must ensure that they are held to that promise, not least because it appears less convincing when we read the small print. However, we believe that in order properly to protect people living in social housing, the Government must go further than protecting those whose names appear on the tenancy agreement; as we all know from our constituency surgeries, life is much more complicated than that. People and relationships do not fit neatly into compartments. We need flexibility and an extension of the criteria to ensure that the allocations policy meets a wider range of needs.

In the past, it was not necessary to ensure that all the relevant people’s names were on a tenancy, because no loss of rights was involved if, for example, cohabitation came to an end. The Government’s decision to embark on a model with two tiers of tenants—those with existing rights and those without—changes everything. Under the Government’s plans, for example, what protection will a woman have who lives with her partner or husband in a social rented home where only his name appears on the tenancy? None. If she is the victim of domestic violence or the relationship simply breaks down, she will not have what she believes to be her existing right to a secure tenancy.

Such a woman could be offered one of the Government’s proposed flexible tenancies. We think that that is wrong. She might be put either into the private rented sector or into a new affordable tenancy, with all the potential cost implications of that move for housing benefit. She might well have left home in a hurry, with no source of income and a lot of uncertainty about her future and any joint assets apart from the home that she and her partner might have had.

Amendment 220 would give meaning to the Government’s promise on existing tenants’ rights by extending that formal protection to an allocation to three extra groups. First, the amendment would extend protection to people living with their spouse, civil partner or someone in that capacity. The amendment uses the phrase “subsisting relationship” to cover all three areas, which is drawn from immigration legislation.

Secondly, the amendment would extend protection to family members who live together because one acts as the other’s carer and therefore deserves protection from what the Government are doing. Their name might not appear on the tenancy, but they would be living in social housing and giving their time to act as a carer for a loved one. We should support them and extend protection to them as well. The Minister may say that discretion is being given to housing authorities to deal with such cases, but we genuinely feel that the provision needs to be in the Bill.

Thirdly, there are many instances where siblings cohabit in social housing and only one of them is named on the tenancy. We want both siblings to be equally protected from any changes to tenancy rights. Why is it fair for one sibling to benefit from a social tenancy while the other may well have to pay a new affordable rent if for some reason the relationship falls apart and they fall out? These things do happen. Amendment 221 is consequential and arises from amendment 220, so I shall not spend time on that. These changes are fair and reflect the realities of many social housing households. They give credibility to the Government’s promise that the rights of existing social tenants will not be abridged by the reforms.

Amendment 222 comes with the full support of the National Housing Federation. It is designed to secure flexibility for local housing authorities, housing associations and their tenants in boosting mobility. The amendment would guarantee that social housing tenants would be able to seek a transfer through their local authority allocation scheme—or, indeed, outside it.

The current drafting of the Bill will prevent tenants with reasonable preference from transferring outside the allocation scheme and from using the allocation scheme. The Chartered Institute of Housing has also expressed concern about the running of these dual lists and would prefer there to be some reform of the existing framework. It would be helpful if the Minister explained the logic behind the clause. I am not clear about the Government’s reasoning on the matter or why they are pursuing such a course. It is clearly not a route that the housing associations want to go down, and I am sure that they did make representations to the Minister.

Will the Minister talk us through his thinking? Why has he chosen to go against the wishes of the sector and what benefit will the measure bring to tenants?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

It is good to be back under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Amess. The hon. Lady promised that this sitting would not be quite as consensual as the previous one, and it has certainly started off in that spirit.

May I just deal with the adequacy or otherwise of the consultation? I draw her attention to the fact that there were practically a record number consultee responses, as is reported fully in the summary of responses to the consultation that we published earlier this week. The subject is certainly important and I am not at all surprised that housing providers and many others found plenty of things to say and sufficient time to say them. We have taken careful stock of those responses in what we have supplied to the Committee in the final chapter—chapter 8 —of the summary of responses, which sets out the Government’s response to the information that we have received.

I say to the hon. Lady that social rented housing is a vital resource that is definitely in short supply. It is trying to make the most effective use of a very scarce commodity that has led the Government to introduce the proposals in this section of the Bill. In 1997, 4.386 million homes were available for social rent in the housing association and local authority sector; when the coalition Government took over last year, 3.966 million such homes were available in that sector. The number of socially rented homes available had fallen in that 13-year period by 420,000.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is talking numbers, without talking quality. Will he now tell the Committee about the condition of that social housing stock in 1997, what proportion of those properties were substandard, unfit for human habitation or otherwise defective, and how many of them have been improved in the intervening period?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Quite a lot have been improved, but there are still more than 300,000 that are unimproved. As for eliminating the problem of homes below a decent-homes level, the right hon. Gentleman did not succeed with that objective either.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I will give way in a moment.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View was right about the absence of consensus. I am simply making the point that what is a valuable resource is in short supply and we need to make sure that it is used properly. About 230,000 of the homes that we do have are officially overcrowded and in breach of the overcrowding standard. More than 400,000 homes are under-occupied to the extent of more than one spare bedroom.

The hon. Lady asked me when I changed my views. I did not change my views at all. I want to bring to the attention of the Committee one of many cases since I have served as an MP. During the past couple months, I have seen a lady in my constituency who lives in a two-bedroom council house with her partner and three teenage children of both sexes. It is an increasing unsatisfactory situation, with three teenagers sharing a bedroom in the two-bedroom house. They urgently need to find larger accommodation, but they have little chance of achieving sufficient priority to do so at the present moment. The hon. Lady might wonder what that has to do with anything. Well, on the same estate are many three-bedroom houses occupied by elderly widows whose families have grown up and left the area.

Let us take the argument a little further. When my constituent has the opportunity for a new tenancy, it is right and sensible for the housing authority to consider giving her a 10-year tenancy. In 10 years’ time, her youngest teenager will be in her 20s, and it will be the right moment to re-appraise whether the larger house into which that family had moved was still required by them. We are discussing an enabling provision. Nothing is compelling housing authorities to change their existing practice if they choose not to do so.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Homes and Communities Agency has issued guidance on how it intends to allocate funds for the national affordable housing programme in future years. Will he now tell the Committee what conditions it intends to impose on those authorities and housing associations that decide not to allocate a substantial proportion of their re-let properties to the new affordable rent regime, which will not be affordable to large numbers of people along the lines that he has been talking about?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The right hon. Gentleman asks me to make the point that it is for local housing authorities to take a decision about what policies they employ for the letting of tenancies in the future. They can take account of advice or information that they receive from anyone, including himself or the Homes and Communities Agency. I say to Opposition Members that this is enabling legislation, and it permits local authorities to do things that many of them wish to do.

I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the responses that we have received, which show that two thirds of housing authorities would look to use at least some of the flexibilities that we have given them. They have also responded on particular aspects of those flexibilities—on which parts they would prefer to have presented as an open door, and on which parts they feel should still be constrained by legislation. We have responded to that in our feedback on the consultation, setting out what the Government intend to do.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, asked me a number of questions, which I will do my best to answer, and I am sure that she will let me know if I miss any of them. I do not accept that the consultation was rushed. I believe that by providing, with no compulsion, a power to local and housing authorities to have flexible tenancies in future, and by ensuring that every existing tenancy is protected—housing authorities cannot vary them, even if they want to—we have set a practical back-stop. When we debated that topic, I inadvertently became a little overheated, but I say to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that the literature that is being circulated implying that the Government intend to take away council tenants’ tenancies is completely wrong and misleading.

Clause 121 takes all social tenants seeking a transfer out of the statutory allocations framework, unless they have a reasonable preference—a priority for social housing. As a result, social tenants will find it easier to move within the social sector, and local authorities can better manage their stock and strike a balance between the needs of existing tenants and those with priority on the waiting list.

Amendment 220 would add to the list of people to whom the allocations legislation will no longer apply. As far as I can see, the intended effect of the amendment is to allow those people to move into another social property without having to queue on the housing waiting list. That is not sensible, and we do not believe that the drafting of the amendment works, either. We are trying to give back to local authorities the power to decide who should and should not qualify to go on the waiting list, and many of the local authorities—including, incidentally, the London borough of Greenwich—that responded to the consultation welcomed the flexibility and said that they would use it. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, knows that, but if she has not had an opportunity to study the detail of the consultation, I hope that she will do so.

The amendment would restrict the flexibility, because it would allow certain people to get into social housing without having to meet the local authority’s qualification criteria. There does not seem to be any justification for allowing some people to circumvent the rules that determine who should access social housing simply because they live with someone who qualifies. The amendment would also mean that people living with a social housing tenant would be able to jump the housing queue and gain an allocation, ahead of others who could be in much greater housing need or might have been waiting for far longer.

Amendment 221 does not seem to work as drafted, because proposed new subsection (4B) applies only to transferring tenants and would not apply to people who live with a tenant, but who are not tenants themselves. It does not, therefore, achieve the objective that the hon. Lady set out.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, said about live-in carers. The Minister is not paying enough attention to that. It is not like the situation with teenagers. As people become more frail and more vulnerable, they may often need to have a family member move in with them. That is a special consideration. Such people often give up a career and a salary—their own lives—to take that on, and the words that the Minister has just used are not appropriate. A carer makes a very big sacrifice, and it is appropriate for that to be considered in some way in the allocation.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I go back to the point that I made at the beginning: the provision will apply to new tenancy arrangements only. If there is a new tenant under the new arrangements, and if a carer proposes moving in with them and that carer wants to register their interests, they can do so. Specifically, if that carer has come from another council home, having surrendered one tenancy and having moved in to help somebody else—I am sure the hon. Lady has many examples of that; I do, too—it is entirely right that there should be a lettings policy that recognises that. It will be in the hands—in the ownership—of the housing authority to be able to say, “Yes, you have surrendered a tenancy, you are doing that caring duty or job, and when and if that caring duty and that tenancy end, we will safeguard where you have come from.”

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

I am terribly sorry, but I am not reassured by the Minister’s line of argument. The Minister and the Front-Bench team should think about this. We do not want to give rise to a perverse disincentive for looking after members of one’s own family. Ultimately, if people are disinclined to look after their own family members because of the implied threat to their livelihood, the cost to the public purse could be an awful lot more, and it could create a much unhappier family situation. The Minister and his team should think about that a bit more.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Let me say a couple of things that may be relevant here. First, the situation that the hon. Gentleman described is, of course, already the case with registered social landlords. We are talking about those who have what have traditionally been called council house tenancies. We need to understand that there are already different situations applying to different sets of tenancies, if we are talking about carers moving in from outside, as opposed to spouses and direct family members. We will return to that in a subsequent clause that looks in more detail at the requirement on local authorities to have a transparent housing allocation policy. I am happy to return to the issue at that point, and to discuss it in more detail then. There is a broader context about the terms, which we are saying housing authorities have to be explicit about when a new tenancy policy is introduced.

I want to reassure Opposition Members that no existing tenant will have their tenancy interfered with in a way that would create the situation that they have described. A tenant would be moving into a tenancy where the situation was already known, so there are no surprises coming to existing tenants as a result of that particular element. I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, will agree to withdraw her amendment, but if she does not, I will encourage my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

May I take the Minister back to his opening comments about his concern that there are fewer social housing tenancies and social housing properties available than there were in 1997? Would that be in part due to the take-up of the right to buy? Not everyone on the Labour Benches will agree with me on this, but I am sure that a significant number of Government Members will: I think that the right to buy was one of the most successful policies, allowing people a foot on the ladder. It gave them a way of having an asset, which nudged their behaviour when it came to work, ensuring that their kids got on, and getting on in future. The reduction is in part due to the right to buy, which I believe was a particularly successful policy.

I am not sure whether the coalition is split on the issue, and whether the Liberals are opposed to the move. My concern about a lot of the clauses on housing is that they do not so much nudge people as head-butt them in the opposite direction to working, looking after their family and getting their kids to university. We will have opportunities to discuss some of those clauses later on.

Often, it is people who buy their homes or stay for a long time—sometimes when it is not necessarily in their financial interests to do so—who are the anchor in our estates. Those people are families that others look up to, saying, “Gosh, you know, Mr and Mrs Smith down the road have put a new porch on. They are going to work and their kids are doing well. I want to be like them.” The downside of two-year tenancies is that we will move those people out, and there will be no role models or anyone who is getting on, taking a chance or giving an opportunity. I desperately want those people to stay in their communities.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

We have heard some passion from Opposition Members, and passion with knowledge from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, whose history of working in the housing sector before coming to this place is well known. I am sorry if Government Members begrudge him that passion; I certainly do not.

Part of the reason why there was a good turnout—I am pleased that there was, given the short consultation period—is that Opposition Members did everything they could to encourage people such as tenants groups, housing associations and local authorities to participate. We highlighted the importance of contributing to the consultation. Just imagine how many people might have contributed if the consultation had run for 12 weeks instead of just eight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden talked about the right to buy, and the fact that a significant proportion of those who left the system did so as a result of the right to buy and, in part, our decision to improve properties and make up the £19-billion backlog in the repairs programme that was left to us by the Conservative Government.

The Minister raised an important issue about over and under-occupation. It is something that we all struggle with. We all know people in our constituencies who are under-occupying, and we also know that there are people who are attached to their houses, having put 30 years or so of commitment into them, repairing and improving them. They are not easy to move. A number of local authorities have historically tried to move people, including by offering incentives, and there are all sorts of things that can be done under the current system. However, unless we have good-quality housing stock to move them to, there is no reason why a lot of them would go. They do not want to move to one-bedroom flats; they want at least two bedrooms, because they know that in six months or a year, they might have a caring need themselves. I appreciate that the Government are also struggling with the issue, but I do not think that the clause is the way to go.

The Chartered Institute of Housing and others are concerned that the clauses will have unintended consequences because of the way that they are set up, and will damage the good work that has gone into mixing communities. Interestingly, the right to buy was part of that process; as it was taken up, people with different targets and aspirations lifted the area.

Ian Mearns (Labour, Gateshead)

There is an unfortunate downside to the right to buy. When residents who bought their council houses sold them on to the private rented sector, it led not to a mixture of tenures on council estates, but to a mixture of one type of tenure—private rented and local authority rented properties. In areas where local authority properties have been improved through the decent homes programme, private rented accommodation often stands out like a sore thumb, as it has not been improved to the same standards.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

My hon. Friend flags up a matter that we will come to later: the general state of the private rented sector. He is right that that is one of the knock-on effects of the right to buy—perhaps a negative one.

The Minister said that the amendment was not perfectly drafted. I wish that I had access to Government draftsmen and lawyers; it would certainly help, but we are doing our very best. He can be critical, but I think that everyone understands the reasoning behind the amendment. The wording may not be perfect, but the principles are thoroughly laudable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South mentioned the importance of carers. People often move in with an elderly parent, perhaps from the private rented sector. They could live there for a considerable time looking after that person. They will not necessarily think, “Oh my God, I’ve got to put my name on the tenancy,” or “I’ve got to set up a joint tenancy,” because they are busy caring. Then the parent dies, and they discover that they should have done that, and find that they have no entitlement. A number of people in my constituency have approached me with concerns about some of the Government’s proposals on caring, but they themselves have problems and are in need of support. Those people will not always understand their rights in such circumstances. That is why we want this protection in the Bill.

We appreciate the need for flexibility, and we understand what the waiting lists mean in fact, rather than simply from making assumptions, as the Government do. We believe that there should be transparency in the system. It is important that people should have good access to advice from officers, and free housing advice—things that have been desperately hit by Government cuts. We believe that the proposals will not be to the benefit of social housing, and there is a risk that social housing will become housing of last resort and that, over a long period, ghettoisation will happen. What the Government propose is nothing more than an exercise to close the housing register to certain groups. It will not create more options or free up more homes, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.