Localism Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2011.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good morning everyone on this, the last day of the Committee stage of the Localism Bill.

Alison Seabeck (Labour, Plymouth, Moor View)

On a point of order, Mr Amess. Unfortunately, I will not be here this afternoon, because I will be attending a family funeral, but I want to put on record my thanks to you and Mr Bayley for the wonderful way in which you have chaired the Committee. Like a good football referee, you have not used your whistle very much. I thank the Clerks for the great help that they have offered me, and I am sure that my colleagues will say something similar later. I also, of course, thank other members of staff, such as the Doorkeepers.

I thank the Ministers and members of the Committee as a whole for making this a good Committee. We have scrutinised many areas well, but we may still want to come back to some of them on Report. This has been the first time that I have served on a Committee as a Front Bencher, and I particularly thank my Back-Bench colleagues for the quality of their enthusiasm and support.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

We extend our sympathy to the hon. Lady regarding the funeral this afternoon. She made kind and generous remarks, and perhaps I shall make my own comments at the end of our proceedings. I thank her very much indeed for the way in which she expressed herself.

Clause 199

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The clause creates a new arrangement within the Greater London authority by making the mayoral strategies subject to an assembly vote and enabling the assembly, by a two-thirds majority, to override the Mayor’s strategy. On the face of it, that might seem a curious proposition. Why two thirds; would not a simple majority be sufficient? To understand the logic, we have to go back into history, and I hope the Committee will not be too upset if I make a short historical diversion. On Tuesday, I threatened to make a very long speech, and while the matter needs to be covered, I shall try to keep my speech as concise as possible.

From the mid-1960s, with the creation of the Greater London council and the larger, more powerful London borough councils, we saw a change in the governance of London that, unfortunately, never really bedded down satisfactorily. From the outset, there was tension between the GLC—the strategic body—and the more powerful London borough councils that were flexing their muscles. That tension existed whether or not there were political differences between the GLC and the boroughs, or whether they were from the same party. I well remember rows between a Conservative GLC and Conservative boroughs, and between a Labour GLC and Labour boroughs.

Those conflicts, which continued for about 20 years, undermined the credibility of the governance of London. Although they were not the cause of it, they nevertheless made it easier for the Conservative Government in the 1980s, irritated by the constant pinpricks coming from County hall, to abolish the GLC. We all—even the Conservative party—now recognise that that was a serious mistake. It was the ultimate act of centralisation. It was a case of central Government saying, “We don’t like what is going on at local level beneath us, and we are going to abolish the body.” That was an untenable proposition from a party that advocates localism, so I hope that a lesson has been learned.

I do not wish to rub people’s noses in this, but we had the task in the late 1990s of restoring city-wide governance to London. I found that activity intensely stimulating. It occupied three years of my ministerial life, and I gave great thought to the sort of structure that needed to be put in place.

We had two overriding objectives. First, we wanted to restore a democratic, city-wide body that would be able to look after the interests of London as a whole. It was widely accepted that a number of services, such as transport, policing, environmental oversight and economic development, could not be provided on the basis of 32 different strategies from 32 different boroughs, with the City corporation providing a 33rd. As well as providing overall strategic leadership, however, we wanted to avoid a return to the tensions and conflicts between the London-wide tier of governance and the boroughs that had marred the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s.

Putting those two thoughts together, we opted for a directly elected Mayor to give strategic leadership and a clear democratic mandate. However, we also wanted to limit the new Greater London assembly’s remit to a relatively small number of strategic functions and to avoid the GLA treading on the boroughs’ toes on local service delivery, which is best dealt with locally. That was the basic thinking behind the GLA’s structure, and it gave effect to the principle of subsidiarity, which was increasingly in vogue, as I hope remains the case. We sought to retain at city-wide level only those responsibilities that must be handled London-wide and to ensure that local service delivery was devolved.

The other key decision about the structure reflected the need for a Mayor who would enjoy one of the largest democratic mandates in Europe—I was advised at the time that only the Presidents of France and Portugal would have larger personal mandates—to have appropriate executive powers. If the decisions of a Mayor who had been elected by millions of Londoners could have been overturned by a simple majority vote in the assembly, it would have seriously undermined the Mayor’s effectiveness and undoubtedly irritated the London electorate.

The structure we devised envisaged a powerful Mayor—albeit that his or her powers were limited to specific strategic issues—who was able to give leadership to London. To ensure that the Mayor’s powers were not untrammelled, checks and balance were of course fundamental, so we gave the assembly the power to override the Mayor’s budget, but only if it could achieve a two-thirds majority.

We came to that conclusion after taking advice from many other countries, including the United States and European countries that operated mayoral systems. One of the strongest pieces of advice that we received was that it was essential that there should be a budget and that it should never be possible for deadlock to arise because the Mayor and the assembly were in conflict, meaning that no budget was set. A number of American cities told us frankly alarming stories of how long periods of deadlock had elapsed between the mayor and the council, as it is generally called in the States. The two-thirds majority was a mechanism to ensure that if the assembly was able to meet that high hurdle, it could substitute its budget for the Mayor’s, but that otherwise the Mayor’s would prevail. The mechanism was designed to ensure that there would always be a budget and that there would never be deadlock, and it seems to have worked pretty well.

The assembly was to be elected on a proportional system to prevent the Mayor’s proposals from being overturned by a simple partisan vote, which might have happened if a different party from the Mayor’s had just 50% of GLA members. That was another reason why the two-thirds majority commended itself to us.

The system has been in place for a decade and appears to have worked reasonably well. The Mayor has had to moderate excessive budget aspirations in the past because of the assembly’s power to substitute its budget for his, if it secures a two-thirds majority. At the same time, the Mayor has been able to give effective strategic leadership to London. Over the past decade, there have been radical developments in transport policy and policing—the introduction of neighbourhood policing—and our city has, against the odds, won the competition to host the 2012 Olympic games. All those achievements, and several others, would have been unlikely without an effective Mayor and an effective GLA.

The structures that we put in place in 1998 were opposed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, albeit for different reasons. The Conservatives opposed the creation of a city-wide authority until it became a reality, while the Liberal Democrats opposed the creation of a mayoral system of government; they did not like the idea of the Mayor. Despite such opposition to the structure, the arrangements have generally worked well, and I am delighted that those parties now recognise that they are appropriate for London. As the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, said on Tuesday, we now see the process of the development of a model that has come to greater maturity as a result of the experience of the past 10 years.

Having said that, I am the first to concede that any model of governance might benefit from some tweaks and reforms. I welcome the principle in the clause that the Mayor can be overruled by the assembly if it musters a two-thirds majority, and that that power should extend to not only the budget, but the Mayor’s strategies. If I am critical of any elements in the 1998 structure of the GLA, it is the degree to which the assembly felt under-powered. Yes, it had an important scrutiny role and could override the Mayor’s budget with a two-thirds majority but, without greater involvement in the process of governance, several assembly members found their role rather limited. I am comfortable with the proposals that have led to the provision for the assembly to be empowered to override the Mayor’s strategies, as well as his budget, on a two-thirds majority.

The changes that the Bill will make to the GLA structure might open the door to damaging and destabilising influences in the longer term, which might undermine the structure of London governance. We need to be very careful to avoid shifting the balance of power in London, and indeed within the GLA, in ways that might seriously damage the effectiveness of our capital city’s governance.

I want to highlight three concerns. The first is the risk of transferring too many powers to the GLA and thus destabilising the balance between the GLA and the boroughs that was correctly set in 1998, with a structure that gives strategic powers to the GLA but all service delivery to the boroughs. As I have said, the overlap of, and lack of proper distinction between, those two elements were a cause of friction in the 1960s, which is why I am cautious about the proposals to extend the powers of the Mayor. I should probably have spoken about that on Tuesday evening, when we dealt with the clause that will transfer the Homes and Community Agency’s responsibilities to the Mayor. However, I sensed that the Committee would not have welcomed a long speech at that point, so I thought it best to touch on the matter this morning. I hope that you will not rule my remarks out of order, in making my remarks, Mr Amess.

My key point is that housing was always a flashpoint between the boroughs and the Mayor. It was a main and serious cause of the conflict in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s—not between the boroughs and the Mayor, but between the boroughs and the GLC. With the GLA being given substantial housing powers, there is a risk that the balance will tilt in favour of the GLA and against the boroughs, which are housing authorities. There is now an overlap, and the Mayor has a substantial degree of control over the boroughs, including on resource allocation. That is not going to be easy, and I see scope for conflicts and disagreements between the boroughs and the Mayor in years ahead. It is important that we do not allow that to take us back to the unproductive conflict that existed under the old structure of the GLC and the London boroughs. I issue a warning that that point must be considered carefully. I am not opposed in principle to the Mayor having a greater strategic function on housing, but how that is operated might trample on individual boroughs, so that should be kept under watch.

My second concern is that the extension of the power of the assembly to overturn the Mayor’s decisions not only on the budget, but on his strategies, might—I do not want to overstate this—subtly change the balance of power between the Mayor and the assembly to the disadvantage of effective government in London. I do not begrudge the assembly a bit more of the action, as I have said. I fear, however, that the changes in the Bill might open the door to the kind of horse-trading that there is in other cities across the world—something that we were warned about when we were taking evidence on the creation of the Greater London authority. If we have a situation in which the Mayor chooses to buy off sectional or local interests through allocation of resources to an area in exchange for a vote on a critical decision, perhaps on a mayoral strategy, we begin to open up the scope for pork-barrel politics of a sort that we have, mercifully, kept out of London—we do not wish to bring back it back.

The provision risks creating such a situation; I put it no stronger than that. I am not saying that the provision is the wrong thing to do, but we should keep a close watch on what happens. If there is an indication that the assembly is flexing its muscles in ways that lead to deals between individual assembly members, or groups of members, and the Mayor to further other objectives, rather than to get the best strategies in place for London, we will need to reflect further on the matter.

My third concern is the remit of the Mayor’s powers. I have already stressed that we did not want to create a situation in which the Mayor began to get into detailed service delivery responsibilities and lost the strategic emphasis, as it was very much our perception that that strategic emphasis was the correct role for the Mayor of London. Under the change, there is a risk that there will be mayoral aspirations to acquire more and more powers and services. Those might relate to housing, to which I have already referred. It may be all right, but there is a risk.

That is not the end of the road, however, because mayors have a tendency to be ambitious for their cities. That is fine, but if such ambition involves trying to aggregate more and more powers and functions, we will see a shift away from the proper division of powers, under which the Mayor is limited to strategic responsibilities and the boroughs are charged with day-to-day service delivery. To illustrate my point, I shall highlight an issue that has been talked about, but that has not so far emerged, to do with the royal parks. I want to press Ministers for a bit of an explanation of what is going on. The parks are run by an agency for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible. I have an interest, because Greenwich park is one of them. It is extremely well run, and we have a good relationship with the Royal Parks Agency, which has regular consultation meetings with stakeholders in Greenwich. The system works very well.

I was alarmed, therefore, when I heard a proposal to transfer the royal parks to the Mayor of London. I am partly alarmed on the principle that if something is not bust, we shouldn’t change it, which seems to apply very much in this case. I am also worried about the Mayor rather enjoying having what might be regarded as glamorous projects—the royal parks are certainly glamorous—and getting into service delivery, as used to happen with the old GLC. In those days, a variety of entertainments and art and sporting activities were run by the GLC. Under the new model, the parks should not be run by the Mayor of London; they should be for the boroughs.

I do not know where the Government got this idea of transferring the royal parks. I can see no great logic behind it; I see a dangerous trend if it is implemented. I hope that the Government will take stock of the matter, because I hear from the Ministers’ colleagues in DCMS that they intend to transfer the parks to the Mayor of London, but they do not have any legislative opportunities for doing so. It has been suggested to me that an amendment to the Bill might be tabled to effect that. I do not see such an amendment in the offing, but Ministers may like to tell us whether that is the case. If it is suggested that an amendment be made in the Lords, I hope their lordships will consider carefully the issues that I have raised.

My concern is not just about doing something simply for the sake of change, which, unfortunately, is one of the hallmarks of the new Government, who have a “year zero” tendency to believe that everything has to change. It is also about creating an imbalance between the GLA and the boroughs. For reasons that I have already spelled out, I am not opposed in principle to the changes made by the clause, but I am a little worried about the direction of travel, and the risk that the changes now being made could undermine the fundamentally sound principles on which the mayoralty of London and the GLA have to date been based.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I would agree with a good deal of the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but not with everything that he said. When we got to about 1985 in the history, we parted company. The fact that there are inevitably tensions, which are sometimes constructive and sometimes less so, between the two levels of government in London is well documented. Perhaps I ought to warn the Committee that my public law dissertation, which I did at the London School of Economics in 1973, was about the tensions implicit in the old GLC’s legal settlement, but I will not go through the whole of it. I recall that there was reference to Greek city states in the Herbert commission; I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, will have been interested in that. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for saying that, with certain caveats, he supports the proposal. I hope that we can make sure that a copy of his speech is sent to and read by his party’s current candidate for Mayor of London, who is also the previous Mayor. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman may be more measured in his analysis of what the role and remit of a Mayor should be than the previous Mayor was.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I was simply reflecting on a prospect that hon. Gentleman apparently shares with us—the prospect of there being a Mayor Livingstone next year.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I was reflecting on how I have often thought that, intellectually, the right hon. Gentleman would be a more credible candidate for Mayor of London for his party, but I am happy with the chances of the current Mayor, good as they are, given the current opposition; so I will not encourage the right hon. Gentleman too much.

The extension of the assembly’s ability to reject the mayoral strategy, which comes at the end of a process that is well set out—I will not go into that, unless the Committee wishes me to—seems logical. That was not in the original 1998 proposal, but I am a pragmatist. We all learn with experience. I advocated such an extension when amendments were made to the GLA Bill in 2007, so I have been pretty consistent. It may be that—I will put it as neutrally as this—at that time, the degree of maturity and experience of the then Government did not permit them to adopt the extension, but I have always felt that there was a case for it, and it is logical.

In practical terms, the two-thirds majority rule has generally worked well in relation to budgets. It has always seemed logical that we should not have a different system for the strategies that drive the spending priorities and for the supply, in terms of the budget. In our eight years on the assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and I were very conscious of the frustrations that all members of the assembly felt about the limited leverage that they had, so I am glad that the proposal has support. It is sensible and rational and puts everything on a consistent basis; that is the key thing.

I understand the point about the balance between the GLA and the boroughs. As somebody who served on the boroughs, the old GLC and then the assembly, I have lived with the balance, and I am conscious of the need to maintain that. That is one of the areas—this is slightly tongue in cheek—where perhaps the first Mayor was sometimes a little more aggressive than the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich in his desire to extend the Mayor’s powers. It is interesting that Mayor Johnson has been much more restrained in the use of the powers that he has. Perhaps that says more about the way that individual Mayors—they are all big personalities— tend to operate.

The clause, which is pitched at where we are, is not a rebalancing between the Mayor and the boroughs. I understand the point the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made about previous clauses, but on housing, a number of his party colleagues have advanced the argument that the London housing market, although it is not homogenous, is certainly not one that respects borough boundaries. They argued that there was a logic to a more strategic housing vision that could be linked to the Mayor’s economic and spatial planning responsibilities. That is what we are picking up in these reforms.

Clause 199 rebalances the internal arrangements of the GLA. As we referred to in another context, there is merit that, in a more mature and settled system. I had some discussions on the issue in New York, when I was in opposition, and I reflected on my thinking on the subject. I came to similar conclusions to the right hon. Gentleman on how one ensures that a genuinely strategic view is taken. I understand the point, which was also raised by others in our original debate on the subject. Nothing in the clause increases the risk of factional trade-offs.

This is not the right hon. Gentleman’s fault—he was not advising the previous Mayor of London—but my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and I could point out that the only serious, obvious and blatant example of pork-barrel politics being indulged in for factional advantage was when the previous Mayor did a deal with the Green group in the assembly to get his two-thirds majority, so that he could get his blocking third on the budget. It has happened once, so it is right to raise the issue, but it was a single instance, and it does not seem to have happened thereafter. We hope that it will not again.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I accept entirely the Minister’s point that the arrangements have not proved a problem with the budget, but we are talking about only the budget, which has been the nuclear option, so both sides have tended to approach the matter in a responsible way. With the extension to the strategies, one will be dealing with a lot more instances where there will be the temptation to try to buy, or prevent the formation of, a majority that could endanger the strategy. That is why I issued the warning. I am not against the clause in principle, but the scope for slightly unwelcome practices of the kind that I mentioned may be increased. I would welcome his views on that.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Where a mature attitude is adopted, that need not be the case. It is perhaps indicative more of the personalities and attitudes of the politicians concerned that Mayor Livingstone thought it appropriate to buy the Green party’s support for his budget by giving the money to oppose one of his strategies—the Thames Gateway bridge. Not many politicians will get themselves into that situation, so we should not read too much into it, although we should always be alert to the issue, as the right hon. Gentleman says. Broadly, assembly members have behaved in a responsible fashion, as have Mayors. We can ensure that that is done. After all, if there were to be cases of abuse of that kind, the electorate ultimately have the ability to demand a price from members who behave in that fashion; that can be dealt with.

It is true that Mayors are ambitious. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree that that is not a bad thing, provided that the ambition is constructive and channelled. Leaders of councils can be ambitious too, and certainly leaders of the old GLC and London County Council were second to none in their ambitions. Going back to my 1973 piece of work, there has always been a tendency for London Governments to centralise a little. With that caveat, we can deal with the issue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the royal parks, and I am happy to set out the position, although interestingly it is an issue that was first raised by the previous Labour Mayor, who had an interest in taking on board the royal parks. It is not, in fact, a partisan point in any way. He is right that hon. Friends the Ministers in DCMS accepted, in a statement on 18 January, that they had the ambition of devolving the royal parks. We have, however, taken the view that that should happen by consensus. We have not included proposals in the Bill, because it has become apparent that the boroughs—of all parties—that have the parks have an alternative view to the Mayor, and indeed his predecessor, on how that might be achieved. We are seeking to facilitate discussions between the Mayor and the boroughs, because if a long-term decision is taken, it is best that it be taken on the basis of a consensus. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.

New Clause 6

New Clause 11

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 15—Efficient and effective planning —

New clause 19—Compensation for compulsory purchase—assumptions as to planning permission—

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, and I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that it is a pleasure to have reached the last day of this Public Bill Committee. As it has been my first ever Public Bill Committee, I feel that I have learned a huge amount about the Bill, the issues surrounding it and the processes of this House. As a new Member, I thank you for your patience and guidance, and I also pass on my thanks to the Clerks and the various officials who have supported us in our deliberations. That said, I have also realised that I must have been a very inefficient new Member before this Committee sat, because I have absolutely no idea what I did on Tuesdays and Thursdays before the Committee, or what I will do on those days in future. I hope that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire, does not get ideas.

New clause 11, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East, would, in short, introduce a community right of appeal. It has become clear as we have considered the Bill that the Government’s intention is, quite properly, to devolve planning powers to local communities. Central to this very radical reform is the intention to give neighbourhoods far more power to determine the shape of the places where people in the neighbourhood live. That is, of course, a welcome move, but there is a missing piece of the puzzle, and that is a community right of appeal. When decisions are taken that are not in line with the local development plan, and that are therefore against the wishes of the local community, new clause 11 would enable the public and their representatives to challenge the decision.

This is not a view peculiar to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East. I remind the Committee of the words in Liberal Democrat and Conservative documents from May last year. The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto stated:

“We will create a third party right of appeal in cases where planning decisions go against locally agreed plans”.

The Conservatives’ policy paper “Open Source Planning” stated that

“we will make the system symmetrical by allowing appeals against local planning decisions from local residents, as well as from developers.”

I do not profess to be an expert in coalition negotiations, but I would have thought that one of the first things that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have done when they met in those hectic days after the general election was to list the things that they agreed with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove was party to the negotiations, perhaps he could shed some light on whether that was the process. In any event, listing the issues with which both coalition parties agreed on what should form a programme of government would have been a sensible departure point. Clearly, had that been the departure point, a limited community right of appeal, which I will talk about, would have been in the coalition agreement. However, it is quite clear that in the Cabinet Office rooms—I was going to say cigarette smoke-filled rooms, but I suspect they are more Perrier-filled rooms—things do not quite work that way.

From our many debates, we know that planning reform is key to the Government’s agenda on localism. It is my view—I hope to convince the Committee and the House in due course—that a community right of appeal would sit well with the other rights that are being devolved to local communities and neighbourhoods by the Bill. The current situation is quite clear. At the moment, only applicants for planning permission may appeal, with no restriction on the grounds of the appeal, to the Secretary of State when a local authority refuses permission. The community and its representatives have no such right of redress. Those issues have been raised with Ministers by other Members of the House. In an answer to a question from my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said:

“The Government’s reforms to the planning system seek to avoid the need for appeals to the Planning Inspectorate by all parties. Planning permission should be secured by consistency with plans rather than by development control.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 480W.]

I think we all welcome that intention. There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend gets it exactly right: that should be the Government’s aim. Unfortunately the Bill leaves us short of that.

The proposed system of neighbourhood planning and neighbourhood development orders will present several challenges, as has been discussed. Crucially, the system will be voluntary. While Ministers expect between 20% and 60% of the country to move to the new system, we need to do more to drive up the take-up for the Bill’s measures. Key among that would be putting in place a system of checks and balances. A community right of appeal against planning applications submitted under the current regime could be a key element in pushing local neighbourhoods to fulfil the Government’s desire.

Of course, we have to guard against vexatious appeals and appeals driven by commercial interest, which is why in new clause 11 I have tried to set a high threshold for the issues that could trigger an appeal and the bodies that would be able to appeal. A community right of appeal as defined in the new clause could be triggered only where a decision to grant a planning permission is not in line with an already adopted plan, or where the local authority itself has a particular interest in the application and so could be construed as conflicted in its ability properly to determine the application. There are many controversial planning issues, such as one in my constituency regarding an incinerator and energy from waste recovery facility, which the local authority is pursuing. It has been rejected by the local authority’s planning committee, but there is a clear interest in getting it through. The new clause would set a high bar regarding who would be able to appeal, limiting the right to a number of representative groups.

We need to be absolutely clear. As the Bill is drafted, developers will still be able to submit planning applications that are contrary to a local or neighbourhood plan, as well as appeal against any refusal based on the provisions of that plan. The changes put forward in the Bill may reduce the chance of appeals being successful where neighbourhood plans are in place, but we should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security and think that the Bill, as it stands, will eliminate appeals in the planning system.

Indeed, over the past 10 years, appeals have become a more prominent part of the planning system. It is estimated that over 8,000 planning applications were deemed to have significantly cut across agreed development plans. That is a tiny part of the 6 million applications in the period, but those 8,000 cases are likely to have had a more significant impact on local communities, because they go outside agreed plans and are therefore controversial enough to be referred to the Secretary of State.

Right hon. and hon. Members might be thinking that there is a different way of levelling the playing field. Indeed, there is; we could remove the developers’ right of appeal. The Conservative party’s quality of life policy group, in their publication “Blueprint for a Green Economy”, suggested that exactly that course of action could be taken to remove the disparity between the rights of the applicant, the developer and the community. However, the Bill does not do that. I ask Ministers to reflect on which avenue they would prefer to take to equalise the rights.

Not only does the Bill not prevent applications and appeals that are outside the neighbourhood planning framework, but it does not prevent local authorities granting permission for applications that are outside the frameworks, provided that they can prove that there are “material considerations” that are significant enough to cause them to override the neighbourhood development plan. In such circumstances, the community, which had come together in the now infamous Dog and Gun to prepare its neighbourhood plan—[Hon. Members: “Dog and Duck.”] It is clearly not infamous enough. The community could be overruled by its local authority and would then have no right of appeal. That is against the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve. New clause 11 would help to redress that.

Community rights of appeal exist in other countries. In Ireland, 8%—almost one in 10—of all planning applications were appealed against in 2008. Ireland has a community right of appeal, and the split in that 8% was roughly 50-50. New Zealand has an established right of public appeal against the grant of planning consent, and it acts as an incentive for developers and planning authorities to focus their efforts on plan making and pre-application discussion. Australians also enjoy a community right of appeal. In none of those countries has a community right of appeal been an impediment to economic growth. Indeed, by forcing developers and communities to work together, it has acted as an incentive for properly managed economic growth and properly discussed community plans.

Too often, local planning can be characterised by large developers railroading unpopular proposals through the planning system, using their unrestricted right of appeal to wear down local opposition and intimidate local authorities. A community right of appeal could be a useful additional weapon in the arsenal of local councillors and local communities in redressing those tactics. A community right of appeal should be seen as a vital part of the overall localism agenda—a part that is necessary to ensure that the reforms in this landmark Bill reach their full potential.

Where decisions are taken that are not in line with an agreed development plan, and that can therefore be considered to be against the wishes of the local community, representatives should be able to question those decisions through an appeals process. That is my view, and it is the contention of new clause 11.

I noted the response that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on the timetable for further reforms. He said—I hope that he does not mind if I paraphrase slightly—that the Localism Bill came first, then the national planning framework, and then we would

“look at the appropriate means of proceeding thereafter.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 134WH.]

I welcome the fact that the Government have signalled their intention to leave the door open for further reforms to the planning system, but that is not as good as getting it right first time. As the Minister knows from his long years of service in local and regional government, planning legislation changes infrequently. Thirteen years passed between the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The House may not get the chance to take this issue forward, and deliver on the coalition parties’ election pledges, for some considerable time.

It is my contention, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East, that new clause 11 will deliver on those pre-election promises made by Government Members. I am hugely grateful for the support of a number of external organisations in helping to develop the clause and research the issue. We believe that new clause 11 would help to underpin the Government’s commitment to localism, and that it would be an added incentive for developers and communities to work together through the neighbourhood planning process that the Bill will deliver. I believe that community right of appeal will be a more efficient and effective method of resolving controversial planning cases, and more in keeping with established planning practices. It will right an imbalance in the system, which will deliver real power and real control to local authorities.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship on this last day of the Bill Committee, Mr Amess. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay that we have learned a lot in Committee in recent weeks. We have had a daily history lecture from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. I said that that this would be a historic Bill when we started, but I did not realise that the history would be topped up every day.

The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has also warmed to the theme. He deprived us late on Tuesday of his history lecture, but he gave us a potted version today. I was astonished to see his conversion to an instinctive conservatism, which I had, in the past, doubted would take place; I thought of him as radical. When he said that we should not change things if they are not broken, it recalled the words of the third Marquess of Salisbury, who said, “Change? Change? Aren’t things bad enough already?” I have never thought of the right hon. Gentleman as a latter-day Cecil, but one never knows.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford East is not with us to speak to the new clause that he tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. I have learned something about the Whips as a result, because the hon. Member for Bradford East, as we know, was initially noted for his wisdom and his sage-like remarks in Committee. That gave way to a certain rebellion, and I am reliably informed that he woke up in Shanghai a few days later, so I have learned to be wary of the power of my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay may bear in mind the further absence today of the hon. Member for Bradford East.

We have before us three disparate new clauses, and I will address them in detail. They are a rather curious set, in that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay invites me to remove the one piece of agreement that I have with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. It is the only clause where the right hon. Gentleman has congratulated me on resisting a third-party right to appeal, which he did on the Floor of the House. It is rather churlish of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay to dissent at this late stage, when we have reached a happy conclusion to our discussions in Committee. I will say more about the detail of that new clause, but I think it is appropriate to talk about the other two new clauses as well. Am I right in saying so, Mr Amess?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I think that there has probably been a slight misunderstanding, which is why I look towards the Opposition. Opposition Members are going to speak to their two new clauses, so for the moment, will the Minister respond only to the new clause that has been moved?

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I will happily do that, Mr Amess. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay is absolutely right that when we were in opposition, we considered, in our reforms to the planning system, whether it was right to establish a third-party right of appeal. At the time, however, there was not the degree of progress in devolving power to neighbourhoods that the Bill proposes. We want communities to have much greater ability to use plans to shape their future. We want to move away from a reliance on the appeals mechanism for resolving such matters; my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that.

The question then arises: do we allow no departure, under any circumstances, from an adopted local plan, including a neighbourhood plan? Discussions that we have had with parties representing a wide range of interests suggest that it is important to have a degree of flexibility, so that if there are exceptional circumstances that were not captured in the plan, it is not necessary to disapprove, or be obliged not to approve, an application that enjoys a degree of consent. It is right to have that limited degree of discretion. However, it is obvious from our discussions, from the Bill, if adopted, and certainly from the national planning framework that the importance and the centrality of the plan are very much enhanced. People’s ability to set out their aspirations in the plan is captured in those things.

The next question is: if there are to be exceptional departures from the plan, who should decide whether that is in the community’s interest? We have a choice between an unelected body—the Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol—or elected local councillors. It is consistent with the type of approach that we want that that power should be vested in local democratically elected and accountable people. They have access to members of the community. They represent the community. They can make a more sensitive judgment than would be possible if the matter were contracted to a third party.

We have safeguards in place to ensure that the interests of the community cannot be ridden roughshod over. First, there is the importance of the plan. Secondly, there is the fact that any decision to depart from the plan must be in limited circumstances and can be taken only by representatives of the community in the planning committee. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned developers being in a position to influence, but developers are not represented on planning committees in the way that residents are, so the ability of elected representatives to determine the outcome is entrenched.

It is necessary to reflect on the need to make the planning system more plan-based and less subject to the appeals mechanism, so that it is more fit for purpose, less costly and more accessible. I would regret my hon. Friend’s new clause resulting in extra cost, delay and uncertainty in applications, when part of the point of pre-loading things into plans is the ability to reduce some of that uncertainty and delay.

Business organisations and many of the developers that will need to invest in our infrastructure, particularly in local infrastructure, are concerned that the proposal would introduce greater expense and delays into the system. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich described it, or a previous incarnation of it, as a barmy measure. I would not go that far, because coming from a system in which there was little confidence in local people’s ability to have their say and their way, I understand its provenance.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: new clause 15—Efficient and effective planning—

New clause 19—Compensation for compulsory purchase—assumptions as to planning permission—

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

If I had kept an eye on the clock, I would have concluded my remarks before we were obliged to adjourn. However, I think I have responded to the constructive points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay.

The Bill will enhance the role of plan making and give local people a far greater ability to have their wishes expressed in plans. When decisions depart from that, which I hope will be rarely, it is right that locally elected people, rather than the inspectorate, make the decision. I shall reflect on the Bill’s provisions to ensure that the primacy of the plan is unambiguous, as we intend. In fact, some weeks ago, when we considered amendments about establishing the importance of plan making over the development control appeals route, I undertook to reflect on whether we could make the provisions even less ambiguous. I will certainly do that, and I hope that that answers the understandable concerns raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that he has been persuaded to withdraw new clause 11, to which I am grateful to have had the chance to respond.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

I would like to speak to new clause 19, which is about compensation for compulsory purchases. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, particularly now that we have reached the new clauses in the Committee’s last sitting.

Locally led regeneration is crucial to our communities, but there is a feeling that it is being undermined by the system for compulsory purchase and compensation. As we know, local authorities use compulsory purchase orders to secure the control of land that they need to deliver the regeneration of an area, and that is essential to the delivery of infrastructure such as Crossrail. The statutory provisions that govern the compensation payable for compulsory purchase are now widely thought to be over-complicated and, in some cases, out of date. That can result in extended negotiations and, unfortunately for those involved, litigation. Compensation payments to landowners can be delayed and can become unpredictable, and I will give examples of that.

One area of particular concern is how to ascertain the planning status of land that is being compulsorily acquired. To assess the value of land for compensation purposes, assumptions must be made about what development might have been permitted through the planning system were it not for the compulsory purchase order. For example, could a dilapidated factory that is being acquired have been redeveloped for housing, or must it have remained in industrial use? Clearly, reaching the right answer to that question can have a dramatic effect on the compensation paid for the land.

There is a feeling that the rules governing the statutory planning assumptions are in need of reform. That has been highlighted in the Lands Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords—the Supreme Court will now be the final court of appeal. Two cases in particular have resulted in seemingly perverse outcomes that demonstrate the failings of the existing system. In the case of Greenweb Ltd v. Wandsworth council, the claimant received compensation in the Court of Appeal of £1.6 million for a piece of land that was 0.22 acres, or some 20 yards by 50 yards. It was established to be worth only £15,000 outside the compulsory purchase system, and it had been bought for £30,000. In that case, we had £1.6 million versus £15,000. A little-known law that was intended to compensate victims of German wartime bombing had been invoked during the procedure, which meant the land had to be valued as if it had planning permission for housing, when it had, since 1979, had planning permission only for use as open space. Wandsworth council therefore had to pay £1.6 million for the land, rather than some price between £15,000 and £30,000.

Press reports from that time make interesting comments on the case. The judge who reluctantly ordered Wandsworth council to pay that very large sum described the law as “utterly deplorable”. The council appealed against the valuation by the Lands Tribunal, arguing that the law was absurd, but three Appeal Court judges upheld the decision, while making clear their serious concerns about the fact that the legislation, based on wartime bombing, still existed. Lord Justice Sir Richard Buxton called on councils to lobby the Government for repeal of the law to avoid

“the unmeritorious deprivation of very scarce funds that occurred in this case”.

Lord Justice Sir John Thomas said it was “highly regrettable” that taxpayers had to fund the purchase of the land for more than 100 times its true value, and Lord Justice Sir Stanley Burnton said that he upheld the law “most reluctantly”.

The second case shows the law working the opposite way. In Spirerose v. Transport for London, the claimant received significantly reduced compensation in the House of Lords, compared with that awarded by the Lands Tribunal and later supported in the Court of Appeal. A legal technicality meant that the land could not be valued as if it had planning permission, although it almost certainly would have got it; it could be valued only according to the hope of getting planning permission, which is a much weaker claim. Transport for London had to pay only £400,000, as opposed to the £608,000 that the land was said to be worth.

Interesting press reports tell us that Michael Orlik, an expert in public law, said:

“It may be that Parliament should consider whether the present system is fair to landowners or whether the law should be changed. The case will have important implications for compulsory purchase valuations. The difficulty with this decision from the point of view of landowners facing a compulsory purchase is that once a Government body or local council has announced its decision to proceed with a new project by compulsory acquisition, the landowner will not be able to obtain planning permission for an alternative scheme because the land is required for a public purpose. He will therefore”—

as in this case—

“only be able to obtain hope value, not the full development value. I think this is something Parliament may need to look at.”

The Greenweb v. Wandsworth council case was in 2008, and the Spirerose v. Transport for London case was in 2009, so they are recent cases. In the second case, the constraints of the current law prevented a proper assessment of the planning status of the land at the valuation date.

New clause 19 would prevent the issues involved in those two cases and similar issues from occurring, and the Bill is a suitable place to introduce that new reform. The new clause would replace the statutory planning assumptions in sections 14 to 21 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 with ones based on the recommendations of the Law Commission reports, “Towards a Compulsory Purchase Code”, which were published in 2003 and 2004.

The Minister may tell me that the previous Labour Government could have done something at the time. If he does, I shall say that it was not considered a priority to bring forward a planning Bill, but this Bill, which we have debated for so many weeks, can change that situation; much is already changing in planning legislation, with the localist principles being brought in for neighbourhood planning, and the new policy planning framework.

The new clause would introduce a new alternative development certificate that is more relevant to the modern planning system than the certificate of appropriate alternative development that it would replace, and it would be of more assistance in assessing compensation. The new certificate would reflect the planning situation at the date on which the compensation is assessed, whereas the existing certificate is based on the planning situation when the compulsory purchase order was first made. Clearly, a in compulsory purchase might have been made decades before such a situation arises. The new certificate would be issued by the local planning authority, as is currently the case, but appeals would be to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, rather than to the Secretary of State—given the other provisions in the Bill, we should perhaps consider easing the load on the Secretary of State. The Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal also determines disputes on compensation for compulsory purchase generally.

The case for reform through the new clause is supported by the Compulsory Purchase Association; the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; the Law Commission, obviously; the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation; and the planning and environment committee of the Law Society. Those who acquire land and those who represent landowners whose land is being acquired recognise the need for reform. Situations do not often arise in which we can see injustice on both sides of a case—for those having to pay for land and for those trying to sell it.

The new clause would not change the basic approach to compensation for compulsory purchase. It would provide the same broad rights within a clearer and fairer system that would allow land required for regeneration and infrastructure to be acquired compulsorily, with a more efficient use of public and private resources. Given everything that we have said in Committee and in the House recently, it is important to help councils that are in situations such as that faced by Wandsworth council. Most importantly, the change would save local authorities much-needed resources and would help to encourage regeneration schemes, which are vital for the growth that the economy needs.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

We are in our last sitting, Mr Amess, so I want to say that it has been a privilege to serve under your chairmanship and that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley).

Like the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay, I am a new boy, albeit an older one. It has been a fascinating experience, and the Committee has done important work, with mature debate. We have had sharp disagreements, but we have found a degree of consensus too, particularly on the planning provisions. We hope that will be carried forward in the next stages, with much-needed changes to the Bill, not least because as it stands, it is a bizarre combination of localism and Leninism. Those with a memory of Soviet history will recall the legend, “All power to the Soviets”—I am not sure that it was all power to the parish councils—which gave way to a determined centralism in the old Soviet Union. The Secretary of State wants to retain 142 powers at the centre, so changes are needed in the Bill. I am not sure that a new legend of “All power to the Pickles” would inspire the people of Britain.

I wish to speak to new clause 15, which is an enabling clause to ensure that the recommendations in the Killian-Pretty and Penfold reviews are implemented as soon as possible. Those reviews were commissioned by the previous Government to simplify the planning system and were widely endorsed across the spectrum. At present, the Bill does not introduce any powers to bring forward the recommendations of Killian-Pretty and Penfold, some of which would require change to existing statute. It would be helpful, therefore, to have an enabling clause that allowed change to be made to statute where it met the crucial test of securing an efficient and effective planning system.

In recent years, a great deal of progress has been made in modernising and simplifying the planning system, even if only in finding common ground on the fact that further changes are necessary. Along with other work, that has included the Barker review of land use planning in 2006, the planning White Paper in 2007, and the subsequent Planning Act 2008.

The Killian-Pretty review, which was published in November 2008, moved the reforms on by making a range of recommendations for further improvement to the planning regime. Those recommendations related to proportionality, process, engagement, culture and complexity. The Penfold review was established later to explore whether the process for obtaining non-planning consent delayed or discouraged businesses from investing. It focused on changing working practices, simplifying the landscape, improving the interaction between planning and non-planning consents, managing the landscape and so on. I stress again that those things commanded substantial consensus across the political spectrum and in the world of planning. Not all of them commanded consensus, but most did. New clause 15 would ensure that the recommendations in the Killian-Pretty and Penfold reviews can be taken forward at the next stages. We would welcome the Minister’s comments.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South, and for Birmingham, Erdington, for raising the issues. The hon. Lady proves herself an accomplished parliamentarian when she anticipates the arguments that I will deploy against her and effectively rebuts them, so I will not say that the situation reflects badly on the previous Government because they did not take up the chance to deal with a very real set of concerns. She is right to draw our attention to the courts’ determinations over a period of time.

Our reason for not including the measures in the Bill—as every Member of the Committee knows, it is already pretty full with 207 clauses—is, I am sure, the same as the previous Government’s reason: in legislation, we have to draw a line somewhere, and the matters are quite technical and complex. We judged, perhaps incorrectly, that the appetite of the Committee to take on more than 207 clauses might be limited, but that is clearly not the case. Such is the enthusiasm under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, that there is clearly appetite for more.

I will reflect seriously on what the hon. Lady, who has been expertly advised, has said. We will sit down with those experts to consider whether, if we were to find space, it would not open up a whole set of other concomitant changes and amendments to the law that might seriously overburden our work. I cannot give a commitment that we will be able to include the measures, but I will certainly, with an open mind, consider the representations that she and others have made to see whether we can do so.

I now come to new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, which is once again a Henry VIII clause that he urges on us. I find myself shocked once again.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

It is the hand of history.

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

It is clearly the hand of history. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, referred to the Soviet Union; the new clause establishes powers for a Tsar to exercise. The hon. Gentleman was described to me as the power behind the throne in the Labour party these days. Perhaps he is the Rasputin of the Labour party. Perhaps he has had a conversion during the Committee and has reflected on the use to which he could put the clause if ever he were in office; he might find such clauses convenient.

Jack Dromey (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington)

I am aware of the Government’s rather interesting “one in, one out” approach towards regulation; Opposition Members would settle for “one in, 50 out.”

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

The hon. Gentleman takes an ingenious approach. All I can say is that I am very glad that the sensibilities of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich are not offended. He is not with us this afternoon, but his blood pressure would have risen again and the words “constitutional outrage” would no doubt have been on his lips.

We endorse the conclusions of the Killian-Pretty and Penfold reviews. They were both excellent reports, and all three authors have done a service to the country through the work that they put into their reports and the recommendations that they made. Of course, in the Bill, we are taking into account many of their recommendations. The simplifying of national planning policy, acknowledging the crucial importance of pre-application discussions, and community engagement are very much part of the Bill. There is a lot in the Bill. We found, on reflection, that we did not need the power to introduce the other measures that are necessary. There is other statute, including the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, that can, I am advised, be used to that effect.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the drafting of the Bill, I am sure that he would not consider that we have been reluctant to recommend procedures for simplifying things, with the best of intentions, when necessary. I daresay he will be comforted to hear that we do not consider the new clause necessary to implement the useful and important measures in the Bill. If he is looking forward to a future role for himself, I fear that we are going to deprive him of having this particular power if our positions are ever reversed. With that reassurance that the measure is not necessary to achieve what is aimed at, I hope that he will not press new clause 15 to a Division.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

We will not press new clause 15 or new clause 19 to a Division, which will save a bit of time and will be popular with the Committee. I thank the Minister for his assurances on new clause 19. There is an important issue there, and much as the Government always seem to have other opportunities to bring forward legislation, the Bill seems the right place for the measure, so I hope that the Minister will look seriously at it. We have urged that many other clauses be withdrawn, so if he is keen to keep his Bill to 207 clauses, I can suggest a few others that he might leave out.

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his comments on new clause 11, but I want to press him slightly further on a few points. Importantly, my right hon. Friend acknowledged that under the reforms, departures from a local or neighbourhood plan would still be possible. He said that some degree of flexibility was necessary and that the question was who should decide on such departures. He said that rather than the remote and unelected Planning Inspectorate, it should be the local authority that decides, as it is better placed to make a sensitive judgment, and I completely agree with that.

Of course, the local authority already makes the decision when planning consent is a departure from the local plan, and it must advertise that when it occurs. Under the reforms, local authorities are meant to draw up plans in close consultation with local communities. In those circumstances, if the local authority agrees on a departure from the plan, it is fair for the community to have a further right of appeal. It is an important check, so that if a community decides to challenge a departure, the matter can be looked at again by an independent body—in this case, the Planning Inspectorate. If the Planning Inspectorate is the right body for developers to appeal to—there is nothing in the Bill that restricts or removes those provisions—why is it not also the correct body for local communities to have recourse to in limited circumstances?

It is still my contention, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East, who sadly cannot be with us today, that a limited community right of appeal would be an important check and balance in the Bill. It would add to the suite of community rights and would be an important check against the ability of developers to steamroller unwanted applications through. I must say that new clause 11 is supported by several well-respected organisations, including Friends of the Earth, the National Trust, the Open Spaces Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Woodland Trust, the World Wildlife Fund, the Campaign for National Parks, Buglife and Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. I am particularly grateful for the support that the Campaign to Protect Rural England gave in researching the new clause.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has brought another red herring—if I may put it that way, Mr Amess—to the Committee’s attention, which is the question of cost. At the moment, a planning application can ultimately be appealed through judicial review, which is hugely expensive, complicated and time-consuming for local communities that go down that route. New clause 11 simply says that we need a level playing field when it comes to the rights of the developer and the rights of the community. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to reflecting on the matter. With that in mind, I am happy to withdraw the new clause for now, although I signal my intention to return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 12

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall not detain the Committee for long. New clause 12 would simply improve existing tenancy deposit schemes so that legislation works better for tenants and landlords. It would clarify the circumstances in which landlords must protect deposits, and give judges greater discretion over the size of the penalty for landlords’ non-compliance to ensure that it is proportionate.

As the Committee probably knows, Government-backed tenancy deposit protection schemes were introduced in April 2007. The legislation was designed to set out clear responsibilities and time scales for landlords to protect tenants’ deposits, and to provide a quick, efficient way of resolving deposit disputes. Such schemes benefit more than 2 million households in the private rented sector. Those 2 million households’ deposits have been protected, and that includes my own, so I probably need to declare an interest.

Ambiguities in the existing legislation have meant that it is failing some private tenants because they do not have their hard-earned deposits protected. It is also failing landlords, who struggle to find accurate information, and the process is wasting the time of the courts and the advice services. In the past year, for example, citizens advice bureaux dealt with almost 15,000 inquiries relating to tenancy deposit protection. Almost 4,000 people went to the housing charity Shelter for advice relating to their rent deposit, three in four of whom did not have their deposits protected. Despite the best efforts of the previous Government to introduce much-needed protection in this area, the system is not quite working as the House intended. Each of the individual schemes that provide tenancy deposit protection, as well as national landlord and property organisations, has given strong support to improving the schemes and, indeed, to new clause 12. The broad support for such change is a clear sign of the need for reform to ensure that legislation works better.

The first provisions of new clause 12 are designed to clarify the circumstances in which landlords must protect deposits. It removes the “initial requirements” wording in the original legislation and instead requires landlords to protect their tenants’ deposits by complying with the requirements of one of the authorised schemes. The original wording implied compliance with the initial requirements of the individual schemes, but the courts have found that particularly difficult to enforce and landlords have been unclear about which requirements they were supposed to follow. The amended wording would make the requirements much clearer, so landlords would have a much stronger idea of their responsibilities and the courts would find it easier to make judgments.

The new clause clarifies specific grey areas in existing legislation. First, ex-tenants, as well as current tenants, would have access to recourse if their landlord failed to protect their deposit. Secondly, if a tenancy that began before the introduction of tenancy deposit protection schemes was subsequently renewed, the landlord would be required to protect the deposit. Finally, if a property changed hands, the new landlord would also be under an obligation to protect the deposit.

The second aspect of new clause 12 would give judges greater discretion over the penalty for a landlord’s non-compliance. The new wording would remove the all-or-nothing sanction of three times the deposit, and it would enable judges to make a discretionary judgment as to whether the landlord should pay a penalty of between one and three times the amount. As hon. Members are aware, judges have been reluctant to impose the full penalty of three times the deposit, particularly when the landlord had protected the deposit but outside the strict 14-day limit. A Court of Appeal judgment of 11 November 2010 concluded that the sanction of three times the deposit does not apply if the landlord belatedly protects the deposit at any time up to and including

“the eve of the trial of a claim for the penalty damages”.

The existing provision is not only not proportionate in law, but not working in practice.

By giving judges discretion on the level of sanction that they can apply, new clause 12 would ensure that they would be better able to take into account the range of factors that contributed to a landlord’s non-compliance on protecting a tenant’s deposit. That would enable them to impose lower penalties on landlords who were evidently ignorant of their responsibilities, and higher penalties on landlords who wilfully failed to protect their tenants’ deposits. I believe that the change would lead to more proportionate sanctions for landlords, while offering a clear incentive for them to comply with the will of the House. I have no intention of pressing the new clause to a Division, but I shall be grateful if the Minister will respond to some of these issues.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause. It addresses a relevant and topical issue, and I am sympathetic to its main thrust, which is to clarify the issues raised in the recent court hearings to which he referred.

Like the dissenting judge in such cases, we think it right that sanctions for non-compliance with tenancy deposit obligations should be robust and a disincentive to bad practice. The ambiguity in the present wording should certainly be put right, and I congratulate my hon. Friend, and my absent hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East, on their attempt to do that.

Unfortunately, new clause 12 goes beyond that basic aim because it would make changes that do not flow from the Court of Appeal decision. Sadly, it also misses one of the issues that did arise in the Court of Appeal, and I will deal with that omission first. The key finding of the Court of Appeal concerned the application of a financial penalty for non-compliance with the requirements of tenancy deposit protection legislation in a situation when the tenancy is still in place and the landlord has protected the deposit after the deadline of 14 days. While the new clause tackles that issue, one of the reasons behind the Court’s view concerned the ability of a landlord to use section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 to evict a tenant when they were found to be in breach of tenancy deposit protection legislation. Under the legislation as it stands, a landlord who fails to comply with the deposit protection legislation cannot use section 21 to evict a tenant. That is important, because section 21 is one of the key characteristics of assured shorthold tenancies to which the tenancy deposit scheme relates. It allows a landlord to evict a tenant, having given reasonable notice, on a non-discretionary basis and without having to give a reason. The ability to gain possession of their property is key to a landlord’s confidence in letting out that property in the first place, and in the current economic climate, we would not want to undermine that confidence.

As the Court of Appeal pointed out, under the tenancy deposit protection legislation as currently drafted, it could be argued that once a landlord has failed to protect a deposit, they would be unable to use section 21 in connection with that tenancy, even when they had subsequently protected the deposit and, where appropriate, paid the fine imposed by the court. That outcome is not the intention of the legislation, and we are therefore clear that any amendments aimed at tightening up the requirement to protect tenants within 14 days must also address that point.

The Government’s view is that to address fully the concerns underlying the Court of Appeal’s decision, it is important to allow the courts greater discretion than currently available when setting the financial penalty. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay relayed the current regime to the Committee. However, subsection (11) of the new clause does not offer sufficient flexibility, because as well as allowing flexibility up to a maximum tariff, it still leaves the minimum of one times the deposit. We think that there should be no lower limit. If the objective of such legislation is to encourage landlords to comply and to protect the deposits they take, it cannot be right to levy a substantial penalty when a well-intentioned landlord had made a mistake that, for instance, could result in the deadline for protection being missed by only one day. It is essential that the courts have the discretion to do justice in those de minimis cases, but that would not be possible if the minimum sanction were to be the payment of a penalty equal to the full amount of the deposit.

As I mentioned, the new clause also contains measures that, although they seek to clarify legislation, go beyond issues considered by the Court of Appeal. Proposed new subsection (8A) of the Housing Act 2004, which the new clause would insert, is particular example of that. I understand the wish to clarify what happens when a landlord acquires a property with an existing tenancy in place, and it turns out that the associated deposit has not been protected, but my hon. Friend’s proposal would place all the responsibility and cost for rectifying that on the incoming landlord, regardless of the facts and regardless of who was responsible. That cannot be right in cases when, for whatever reason, the outgoing landlord has not assigned the deposit to the new landlord. The matter needs further consideration, and I am not even convinced that legislation is the answer. Proposed new subsection (8B) is less problematic, and I have great sympathy with the wish to clarify the situation. However, there does not seem to be convincing evidence of a widespread or intractable problem.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for Bradford East for tabling the new clause, which has drawn attention to the Court of Appeal’s decision. I welcome the fact that it will not be pressed to a Division, and I assure them that I shall reflect further on how the matter might best be addressed in the future.

Stephen Gilbert (Liberal Democrat, St Austell and Newquay)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Rarely am I told that I am going too far and not far enough at the same time, but before I exhaust the Committee’s patience and the Government Whip sends me to Shanghai, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 13

New Clause 14

New Clause 17

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would give the six integrated transport authorities a general power, similar to that of the fire and rescue authorities, in recognition that integrated transport authorities are single purpose authorities. The provisions have been drafted using the same structure as those setting out the general powers for fire and rescue authorities, but with changes to reflect the differences between integrated transport authorities and fire and rescue authorities.

The six integrated transported authorities and their passenger transport executives represent the six largest city regions outside London, which are home to 11 million people. They contain core cities that are major drivers of our economy—such as Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield and Birmingham—and cover larger areas such as Greater Manchester. The integrated transport authorities and passenger transport executives are the strategic bodies that plan, promote, procure and provide the public transport networks that these conurbations rely on to keep them moving and that underpin their development.

The impact assessment on the general power of competence for fire and rescue authorities—it seems that we debated it only yesterday—states:

“Stand alone fire and rescue authorities will need a similar power (to that of local authorities) to address the lack of sufficient freedoms and flexibilities to do things that they might properly wish to do which benefit or contribute to their purposes. Freeing up fire and rescue authorities by providing general powers in the same vein as for local authorities, will therefore...promote radical devolution of power away from Westminster and Whitehall”.

It would seem perverse, having discussed those powers, that integrated transport authorities were not seen to need a similar power to address the lack of freedoms and flexibilities that may affect what they might properly wish to do. I shall set out some examples of those.

The major reason why integrated transport authorities require a general power is the straightforward fact that they want to deliver better services more efficiently through collaborative working, which will become increasingly important in these times. Without a general power, the integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives will not have the legal comfort that local authorities will enjoy, which we debated extensively in our earlier sittings.

Services in the public sector are being challenged to do more with fewer resources, and to work in different ways to deliver services. Transport authorities should be able to support growth through local enterprise partnerships, so their ability to work collaboratively across partners will be increasingly important as these new structures develop. A functional general power would facilitate working in that way much more readily. It would put beyond doubt the legal uncertainty that might hold back innovative initiatives in metropolitan areas. In non-metropolitan areas, the transport function sits with the local authority, which will have a general power of competence, so this starts to be a divide between transport authorities that have that general power, and ones that do not.

A general power for the integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives would assist them in joint procurement, partnership working and innovative service provision. For example, the Government have said that they want the majority of public transport journeys to be made using smart ticketing by 2014, and they have provided passenger transport executives and Bristol, Nottingham and Leicester local authorities with funding to achieve this. The PTEs are working with Bristol, Nottingham and Leicester authorities on issues such as systems testing, data analysis and ticketing equipment to ensure that that Government objective is met in a timely and cost-effective way. However, if, as we imagine, the Bill completes its passage through Parliament without any change to the general power of competence, local authorities in Nottingham, Leicester and Bristol will have that power to engage in joint enterprises and deliver such programmes, but passenger transport executives will not.

There are a few other areas in which a general power might offer improvement, such as in the provision of real-time information and other technologies, for which joint service provision and shared back offices would deliver efficiencies and help to reduce costs. It will become increasingly important to facilitate joined-up service delivery, and a general power would help to permit that. Passenger transport executives would then be able to take a bigger role in joining up services across districts and help realise efficiencies, which would be important in the metropolitan areas that I have talked about. Allowing greater innovation in how transport authorities procure services will be key. For example, individual areas could deliver unique services and look at commercial opportunities, such as supporting visitor attractions. I have not yet managed to get in a plug for the fact that Salford will become the host of Media City and for the BBC’s move to Salford. That will be a major visitor attraction, so transport to and from that part of Salford will be important.

The ability of transport authorities and their executives to work closely with the new local enterprise partnerships would be enhanced by a general power, as they might need an opportunity to work across boundaries that might not be the same as a transport authority’s. That would help to establish suitable governance arrangements and help the bodies to join initiatives started by local authorities.

The integration of transport is key. It is frustrating for our constituents if they can make a journey by one method—for example, by bus or by tram in Greater Manchester—but not get a joined-up service that takes them to where they want to go. A general power would allow passenger transport executives to do anything reasonable to pursue that aim. For example, passenger transport executives might adopt a greater role on rail stations, and a general power would help them to integrate better, such as by assuming responsibility for railway land and non-railway land. The ownership of land around transport facilities might be unclear, and the acquisition of that land might help. A general power would assist integrated transport authorities to secure transport provision into and out of their areas, such as through increments to long-distance rail franchises linking to London or other cities—I hesitate to mention High Speed 2 at this point.

I hope that those examples have helped the Committee to understand that a general power would give integrated transport authorities and passenger transport executives the legal comfort to pursue some of the things that I have talked about, which well-being powers are not able to give. The general power of competence is important, because it will allow that for local authorities and fire and rescue authorities.

Finally, I would like to touch on an anomaly. On Monday, a Delegated Legislation Committee will consider the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority Order 2011. I think the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, will be a member of the Committee, as will I. The order aims to establish a combined authority for Greater Manchester. If Parliament agrees to the order, it will dissolve the transport authority and transfer its functions to the new Greater Manchester combined authority. This Bill would give a general power of competence to those 10 local authorities, so the Greater Manchester combined authority, as the transport authority, will have a general power. It will be the only one to have that; other transport authorities will not. It is important that the Committee supports the new clause so that all our transport authorities are put on the same footing.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

As this might be the last time that I speak in this Committee, even though one can never tell with these things, I would like to add my thanks and congratulations to you, Mr Amess, and other members of the Committee on the hard work that has been put in on this landmark Bill, in which we have all enjoyed participating.

I can make some common cause with the hon. Lady on new clause 17 because she and I share an integrated transport authority. From Monday onwards, if things go to plan, we will share a combined authority. The hon. Lady has rightly pointed out that there are some ambiguous or anomalous consequences of the different structures of the country’s transport authorities. It is important that such bodies, like local authorities, have the suitable powers to perform their roles. As she rightly pointed out, different cases have different circumstances. We are about to create a new specific case for Greater Manchester, so we need to be sure that any powers provided by Parliament are the right ones, and that we do not leave any unintended gaps or create any unintended consequences.

Integrated transport authorities and passenger transport executives are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that he will be interested in the points that have been made, so I will ensure that the relevant parts of Hansard are drawn to his attention. I am sure that the appropriateness of the available powers is something that he will want to consider in light of the views of the sector and, more widely, of the local government community. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that she does not need to press the new clause to a Division.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

I thank the Minister for offering to pass on our comments in the debate, as well as the substance of the new clause, to the Secretary of State for Transport. I will also write to him, so I hope that we will have a response on Report. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 21

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I join other Committee members in expressing my gratitude to you, Mr Amess, and Mr Bayley for the way in which you have chaired the proceedings. I thank the Clerks for their support, and also the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for his patience with my occasional desire to delay the proceedings.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, North Herefordshire)

There might be a Chinese visit.

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I will not delay proceedings for long on this occasion, for fear that some other foreign country might benefit from my presence.

I want to reassure Labour Members—particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who may be worried that I seek to add to his count of Henry VIII clauses with the new clause’s wording. First, I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division, and secondly, my desire is to focus on a specific issue that affects my constituency. I suspect that it also affects other parts of south London, and it has been noted that a number of Members from south London constituencies are on the Committee, but it is a shame not to see the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich here this afternoon. It was not possible to draft a more specific clause, for reasons that I will come to.

As Members know, I represent Croydon Central. I have lived there all my life, and I do not see myself living anywhere other than south London. It is a great privilege to represent my home town in Parliament, which is only slightly blighted by the fact that this building was built on the wrong side of the River Thames. That is mitigated a little, however, by the correct location of City Hall.

In a number of ways, my constituents feel that they are being asked to pay for things that they do not benefit from. People write to me about the Olympics, questioning why there is a council tax levy for it in Croydon when in Essex districts, much closer to the Olympic park, there is not. I also get businesses asking why they are being asked to pay a supplementary business rate for the Crossrail scheme, when my constituency does not benefit directly. In those two cases, I give fairly robust replies that such projects benefit Greater London as a whole, and it is right that all Londoners contribute.

The particular example that I wish to raise, however, is the Lee valley regional park levy, which council tax payers right across London have to contribute to. For Members who are not aware of that issue, the Lee valley regional park authority was created by the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966. That was a piece of private legislation, so a specific amendment to that legislation could not be added to the Bill because it would have made the Bill hybrid. If that makes me sound as if I, as a new Member, am familiar with the detailed intricacies of this matter, I would like to clarify immediately that it is only thanks to the advice of the Clerks that I managed to avoid submitting a defective amendment and I am grateful to them for their advice.

The governance arrangements of the authority demonstrate how certain parts of Greater London, Essex and Hertfordshire have a very distinct interest in that authority and other parts of Greater London much less so. There are 28 members of the authority, of which 20 come from what are referred to as the riparian authorities—those councils that have a bit of the park in their area—the county councils of Essex and Hertfordshire, the Hertfordshire districts of Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire, the Essex district of Epping Forest and the London boroughs of Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. There are just eight members of the authority from the other 26 London boroughs and the City of London.

The authority has the power to place a levy on council tax payers right across Essex, Hertfordshire and Greater London, so that, wherever one lives within Essex, Hertfordshire and Greater London, one is asked to pay the same contribution towards the costs of the authority. We are not, I should make it clear, talking about huge sums of money—it is about £3 for a band D council tax payer for the financial year 2010-11—but obviously, when those sums are multiplied, they are actually quite significant. For the London borough of Croydon, the contribution is about £400,000. At a time when local authorities across the country, for reasons that we will not go into today, are facing significant reductions, that is a significant sum of money that could be spent on the upkeep of parks and open spaces in the London borough of Croydon.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden will know that the London boroughs of Croydon, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth have joined together to promote a regional park for the Wandle valley. That regional park does not have the ability to ask council tax payers elsewhere to contribute towards it. The contribution to the Lee valley regional park from those four boroughs amounts to about £1.5 million that could be being spent on local parks in our part of south London. I have never, in my 12 years as a local councillor or my short time as a Member of the House, ever met anybody from Croydon who has had the opportunity to visit or use that park and when one takes into account the significant contributions of public money being spent in the Lea valley under the Olympic Delivery Authority, the case that this is not consistent with the principles of localism is a strong one.

Members on the Front Bench have demonstrated throughout our proceedings on the Bill a willingness to listen to the arguments that have been made. With due respect to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, whom I have not known for so long, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, whom I have known for a long time, all of whose commitment to the principles of localism has been of very long standing, the case I want to put to the Front Bench today and ask them to go away and consider is that it is surely not consistent with the principles of localism that the people of Croydon are asked to pay for something that they do not use and have never asked to be provided with. It would be much more consistent with those principles if the resources that are currently devoted to the Lee valley regional park could be spent on local parks and facilities in south London. Having made that argument, I will not detain the Committee further.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Since this is, hopefully, my last foray into the Committee’s business, I join in paying tribute to the fantastic way in which you and Mr Bayley have chaired the Committee, Mr Amess. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am sorry that we have not managed to stray into debating Southend-on-Sea, as we sometimes do from time to time, but we all appreciate the good humour that you and Mr Bayley have shown and also the support we have had from the Committee Clerks. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells will be saying more about that in due course.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for raising this point. I want to put it on the record at once that the suggestion that Croydon is the South Carolina of Greater London and will be the first to secede is not entirely well-founded. We are doing our best to avoid any repeat of Fort Sumter at Crystal Palace.

However, it demonstrates a legitimate concern and perhaps something of the history of the matter, so I understand the point. My hon. Friend is quite right. The specific issue that arises comes from a localised and local Bill that was passed—hence the way in which the amendment is drafted. You will know, Mr Amess, that I am in a slightly hybrid position myself as far as this issue is concerned, being an Essex man who, I hasten to add, moved voluntarily to south London, and who tries one way or another to straddle both sides of the river—not an entirely comfortable circumstance, particularly if you are 5 feet 6 inches. But, in all events, it perhaps demonstrates the way that these things are sometimes thrown up as an accident of history.

We should bear in mind that, at the time when the 1966 Act was passed, it was not intended that the people of Croydon or Bromley would contribute to the regional park, but it was intended that those of London, Hertfordshire and Essex would, since they were the three promoting authorities of the private Bill. It was simply the case that, in those days, the Greater London council had a parks function. And there were other Greater London-run parks. Crystal Palace park was one of them, which, upon abolition of the GLC, ironically and interestingly transferred to Bromley, which was responsible for its upkeep, although the park was in closer physical proximity to Croydon and, I suspect, probably more people from there used it than those from Bromley. That is just one of those anomalies. Brockwell park in south London is another example.

Therefore, the Act reflected functions at the time. The difference was that when the GLC was abolished and the responsibility for the funding transferred to the boroughs as its successor authorities in relation to the parks, and the Greater London authority was created—I am sure, if he was here, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich would be able to explain the exact process by which that was arrived at—it was thought, precisely because the GLA was not intended to be a service delivery body, that it was best to leave with the London boroughs the responsibility for this particular body. There was, therefore, no magic in the way this has arisen. But it is an event of history. And it is, of course, worth knowing—I want to make sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, is not left out of this—that the Lea valley has been a highway for commerce and the transport of people since, it is believed, pre-Roman times. There are significant archaeological finds, including Greek coins, which indicate the extent of trade and commerce between the Lea valley and other parts of Europe.

The nub of the point is that the Lee valley regional park authority has a particular function and the sums involved are not large, although I understand why they are sensitive in the current circumstances. The provision for the payment comes under a broader power—the Levying Bodies (General) Regulations 1992—and it would be difficult to unscramble this particular levying arrangement in isolation, without looking at the wider implications of other bodies that might be subject to that levying power.

Secondly, the Lee valley regional park authority has some quite significant functions. I have visited the park and had done so before I was a Minister. There is a balance between those facilities which are local and those which are regional. It was conceived as regional in the Greater London sense. We should bear it in mind that the body delivers important functions which I do not think the Government or indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central would wish to prejudice. It manages a very substantial linear park running through that part of London—some 10,000 acres of green space in an area that is in parts not well served with green spaces, as you and I are aware, Mr Amess, knowing that part of the world from the past. Its zone of sporting excellence attracts people from across London and, of course, it will be playing an important legacy role in managing post-Olympics the velodrome and several other key sporting facilities. We obviously would not want the matter of fairness in funding to prejudice those necessary objectives.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he will not press the new clause to a Division. I am more than happy to meet him to see what we can do, but I suspect that there would have to be a consensus among the participating bodies that currently fund the park for a change to be made, and I do not hold out great hope that such a provision is likely to be deliverable. Nevertheless he has drawn attention to an anomaly in history, which it is reasonable to explore in order to explain what benefits might or might not be achieved. If funding goes in that direction, we can make sure that people from our boroughs in that part of London receive the benefits that, I imagine, the promoters of the 1966 Act intended they should from receive a broader regional facility.

Gavin Barwell (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I will certainly leave our proceedings better educated in the history of Greater London governance and wider western European culture than when we started. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the anomalous nature of the park. As he said, it was one of several parks that the Greater London council had responsibility for, and its status was different from that of some other parks, such as Crystal Palace park on the border of my constituency, when the GLC was abolished. Given the nature of this morning’s debate on the royal parks, and when the Government are clearly looking at transfer to the Greater London authority or perhaps to the boroughs, the anomalous status of the park could be further accentuated. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s offer to have further discussions about it, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause 201

Clause 205

Clause 206

Greg Clark (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells)

On a point of order, Mr Amess. Thank you for your guidance and advice, which have seen us through the Committee. On behalf of the Committee, I pay tribute to the way you have conducted proceedings, which has been firm and expert, but always genial. We have enjoyed hugely your presence in the Chair. I hope that you will convey to your colleague, Mr Bayley, our thanks for his equal diligence, expertise and patience with us. We are very grateful.

On behalf of my colleagues, I extend thanks to the Clerks who have served on the Committee. I do not know whether they consider that they drew the short straw, because this is one the longest Bills before Parliament. We are grateful for their expert handling of the many clauses and complex amendments. They have served us extremely well.

I am grateful, too, to the Doorkeepers. Perhaps the Doorkeeper who is present might thank his colleagues. Consideration of a large number of clauses and amendments involves many shouts and jumps up and down for the Doorkeepers to ensure that we are present and correct. We have been well served, for which I am grateful.

I also thank my officials who, as members of the Committee will have seen, have been dispensing inspiration from the first day of our proceedings. They have had the frustration of not always seeing their words of inspiration necessarily being translated into words that made it into Hansard, which must be a particular source of frustration and grinding of teeth. However, they have borne that willingly and courteously, and we are grateful to them.

I am sure that all the Committee will want to extend thanks to our Whips, on both sides, who have got us through this far. In fact, rather like our performance in the Ashes this summer, we have had almost an innings to spare to complete our proceedings. They have done that with only one of our number having to be transported to eastern China to keep us in order.

I think we all would agree that the Bill has had a thorough airing, which is a remarkable achievement. We have had time to consider each of the clauses, and have a little time at the end—I do not propose to use it all. The judgment and pace that the two Whips have reflected have ensured that, in the best traditions of Public Bill Committees, we have had the chance to consider, at the appropriate length, each of the clauses before the Committee. I have certainly enjoyed serving under the guidance of them both, for which I am grateful.

I thank all members of the Committee, who have been remarkable. The Bill has been wide-ranging in content, and detailed and expert in some of its particulars. When we began, I mentioned that the Committee was over-subscribed. Usually, the Whips have to threaten consequences to hon. Members for not serving on Committees, but on this one we had to let people down gently. All hon. Members have taken a determined approach to give the Bill proper scrutiny. We have heard speeches from both sides that have been passionate and committed, and have reflected individual experience of all the matters in hand. We have benefited greatly from the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the Committee.

Our proceedings have been noticed elsewhere. Some of the conversations that I have had with some of the groups that follow these proceedings suggest that they have been impressed at the degree of scrutiny and the seriousness with which these matters have been approached. That is, in large part, a tribute to my fellow Ministers, who are experts in the area of which they have been speaking, and at the end of it, they are the world’s living experts on the areas that they have been leading on.

I would also like to extend my thanks to the Opposition Front Benchers. One thing that has been clear is that this has not been a ritual exchange of preconceived ideas, merely as an opportunity to read into the record party political and partisan views—quite the opposite. We have made progress; we have deepened our understanding. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, every member of the Committee will see reflected in it the improvements that the Committee, comprised of Members from all parts of the House, has suggested. I am particularly grateful for the manner in which the Opposition Front Benchers have conducted proceedings. It has made for a better Bill.

Finally, I thank Members and organisations outside the Committee Room for their advice. This is an important Bill for many organisations, whether they are voluntary groups or members of the planning profession. They have spent a lot of time and attention on helping to guide our discussions. I hope that they feel that we have listened and responded to their suggestions. We will continue to do that as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley and Eccles South)

Further to that point of order, Mr Amess. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to add our thanks to you and Mr Bayley. I think he is in an interesting place today. I forget where he said he was going—India, I think. Is that far enough for the Government Whip? You have both really helped us, particularly those Members and shadow Ministers who are new to their role. I remember speaking to you on the first day and saying, “You do realise that we are all new to this.” You have helped us—I am grateful for that—as have Mrs Davies and her team. The advice that they give is invaluable to those of us without parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants to back us.

I am always in awe of Hansard and its ability to turn what we say into a coherent debate. That is a great thing. I want to thank all the officials, if you can pass on the thanks to all the people who have been here, Mr Amess. We had at least one late night. I also want to thank the Doorkeepers, who are having to adjust to the new role of having two doors to deal with at once when there is a Division. I know that there are some anxious moments then.

I agree with the Minister that when we have argued in the Committee it has been on questions of principle. There have been some heated debates, as they are often called, but if it is about principle, rather than about personalities, that is as it should be. It has been welcome to have Liberal Democrat Members trying out the context of arguing within the coalition, even if it was only the hon. Member for Bradford East, who for ever dubbed Mr Amess as Mr Bradford, who followed through with his vote. I look forward to reports of more courageous stands at the Liberal Democrat spring conference this weekend. Let us hope that it does not lead to too much foreign travel.

I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Committee. I particularly thank my fellow shadow Ministers. It is a lot of work to be the Opposition on a Bill. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View cannot be here, as she had to attend a family funeral. The passion that she brings on housing has enlivened our debate and I thank her for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington has brought wisdom, historical knowledge and humour to our proceedings. I hope that all the Dog and Duck pubs in the country are grateful for all the mentions they have had. Members will be saddened to learn that I checked and found that we do not have a Dog and Duck in Salford. We have a Dog and Partridge pub in my constituency, however. That is the closest we will get, I think.

I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who has been delayed—I think he will miss this final sitting as well. He has the benefit of layers of experience of previous legislation, which I have found helpful. I thank him for his contributions. I thank all members of the Committee, particularly Labour Members, as they have brought to the Committee the wisdom and insight gained from experience. I feel that I know a lot more about Lewisham, Mitcham and Morden, Gateshead, Sunderland and Scunthorpe. The experience of Members—particularly in local government, housing and planning—has been valuable.

It is unusual to thank the Whips, is it not? I would particularly like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who stepped in at the last minute. That is a good thing to do, and I thank him for his work and patience. To the hon. Member for North Herefordshire I say that we have reached where we said we would reach.

I hope that Ministers, who have been very pleasant to work with, get lots of time to do all the reflecting and thinking that they have promised to do. I look forward to returning to our consideration on Report, because we have a bit of work to do to finish the Bill.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Cynical observers might regard the words that we have just heard as flattery, soft soap or flannel, but I do not. I greatly appreciate all the kind remarks that have been made, and I know that Mr Bayley would appreciate them if he were here. For us both, it has been an absolute pleasure to chair the Committee, not least because of the way hon. Members have conducted themselves.

At all times, our proceedings, which have been well informed, have been conducted with good humour and, most importantly, without pomposity. Considering that most hon. Members had not served on a Committee before, or indeed were new to their posts as Ministers or shadow spokesmen, the way the business has been dealt with, in time, has been quite remarkable. At a time when parliamentarians sometimes feel that they are under siege, the Committee has set a high benchmark. That reflects great credit on the way this Parliament and this Committee have conducted themselves.

I would also like to thank the Doorkeepers—or Doorkeeper—for looking after us throughout our proceedings and when we have had Divisions. I would like to thank the Hansard Reporters for the way they have served the Committee. Although it is none of my business, I would like to thank the officials for the way they have gently moved to their seats as we have gone from clause to clause.

Most importantly, I would like to thank the Clerk to our Committee. Without her wise counsel, the Committee would not have functioned in the way it has. I want to pay particular thanks to her for her encouragement throughout proceedings that I was not losing the plot.