Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012.
Examination of witness
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We will hear oral evidence from Adrian Penfold, the author of “Review of non-planning consents”. I remind members of the Committee that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and also that we should stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee agreed. If necessary, I will cut Members off in mid-sentence, but I am sure that will not be necessary.
Welcome, Mr Penfold. Thank you for agreeing to give evidence.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Can you tell us how far the provisions of the Bill address the issues that you identified in your review of non-planning consents? Are there any other areas that you think remain to be addressed following your review?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Did you have any particular opinion about what that Government oversight should be?
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
Good morning, Adrian. Eighty-six consents seems a horrendous number. Can you give us a bit more indication of the scale of the problem?
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
With that approach, what level of duplication was there?
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
You have spoken about the need for Government oversight and the breakdown of the silo mentality. Can you give us a feel for what difference that would make if it was properly organised?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
If I correctly interpret your evidence, it is that rationalisation and removal of unnecessary duplication is the key, rather than the repeal and removal of requirements, most of which in your view are necessary but perhaps not properly handled at the moment. Is that correct?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
That is very helpful. Are there any areas in the Bill that you think might create new overlaps or duplication? I draw your attention to clause 1 in particular, where, if the Bill is enacted, the provisions for the determination of planning may be directed in the first place to a body other than the local authority.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
No, the Secretary of State may direct an authority to perform certain functions, even if he has taken away those powers.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
There would be duplication.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Do you think that there might be some confusion about who should be taking the decision? Last week, we heard from witnesses who implied it would be very difficult to define objective criteria that would determine whether an authority was failing in a way that would justify removing its powers.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
The Secretary of State obviously had difficulty identifying which local authorities might be identified as failing authorities. You have not read the speech he made during Second Reading?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
In answer to Roberta’s question, you mentioned the provisions on town and village greens being taken forward in a way that you felt was correct and in line with your report. The Open Spaces Society and the Campaign to Protect Rural England are essentially saying that the provisions in relation to town and village greens give us a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What is your response to that concern?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
You do not think that these proposals make town and village green designations more vulnerable for genuine town and village greens.
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
You think that these proposals bring that issue out at the right time and ensure that local people can put those concerns forward.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Good morning, Mr Penfold. How much impact will the Bill have on growing the economy?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Is that a lot or a little?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
The question is whether the Bill will have a big impact or a little impact on the economy. What will it do to stimulate growth?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Do you think the Bill will have any adverse consequences for the environment?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
No.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Order. We will need to move on to another section shortly. If we can keep the last few questions and responses brief, we will hopefully be able to cover the whole ground.
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
Adrian, can we pick up a point that Nick Raynsford made with you on clause 1? I see no potential for duplication or confusion in this. Can you confirm that?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Can I take you back to the answer you gave about damage to the environment and to clarify your comments in the light of clause 7? We have received evidence from a number of organisations that are concerned about the loosening of the protection given to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in terms of electronic communications. This could involve large cabinets; we are not sure whether it covers telephone masts. Is there not a real danger that clause 7 will weaken the protection against unsightly or inappropriate development?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
I was going to ask about the broadband aspect. Has there been any evidence in your initial review that not being able to get planning permission has deterred investment in not only our rural landscapes, but some of our city landscapes?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
I mean the different consents. I will take you on a different one. The Marine Management Organisation is now conflicting with the Environment Agency, potentially, on different parts of coastal development, trying to get consents for all sorts of things—not necessarily planning, but just trying to operate. Can you tell us more about some of the coastal work that you may have looked at?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
Coastal was?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
The MMO is not necessarily solely about marine. For example, there are complications at the port at Southampton that led to various issues about the construction of new onshore developments. You were told not to look at any coastal stuff at all?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
Okay. I really want to talk about broadband later, at 10.30 am.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Are there any further questions for Adrian Penfold?
I thank Mr Penfold for his forbearance at the questions and for the information that he has helpfully been able to share with us.
Examination of Witnesses
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Welcome. For the record, will the new witnesses please introduce themselves to the Committee?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
I want to start with clause 1 and the idea that planning departments might be designated as failing. What are your views on clause 1? Do you think it will encourage local authorities to raise their game, or will it further demoralise the service? If you could all give me a short answer, that would be helpful.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Later on, I might come back to explore the whole localist or anti-localist provision of the clause. If the clause was about improving performance, what might we expect to see in it? How would you advise the Government to improve performance, if it were not the measures in clause 1?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Dr Ellis, are you therefore suggesting that it is not possible to create objective criteria to judge whether a local planning authority is performing poorly?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
What would be some of those objective criteria, if you had a blank piece of paper?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Ms Elliott, you talked about qualitative criteria. What would be qualitative criteria?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Mr Sharp, you thought that only very few local authorities were underperforming, but on the basis of us not being able to agree about what an underperforming local authority is, how could you come to that judgment?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Starting with you, Dr Ellis, on section 106 agreements, what do you think defines economically unviable developments, and are the Government getting that right in the draft Bill? I will ask for a view from everyone.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
You guys are the experts. You would have thought that somebody was in favour of the proposal in the Bill.
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
Malcolm, you started by saying that the system is not broken, but then one of you went on to point to Stratford-on-Avon as a poor-performing district council. The system is broken, in that Stratford-on-Avon has been allowed to continue in this poor fashion for some time. I have had direct experience of it, and it is not a good council to work for. The quality of the planning is pretty poor. It is slow. There is no great change in behaviour and culture. If all the recommendations that you made over the years had worked, we would have a different Stratford-on-Avon.
Clause 1 is to ensure that councils that are failing can be picked up. Do you not agree that that is something that we should be aiming to do?
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
But the simple fact is that that work has not been undertaken or if it has, it has totally failed in the case of Stratford-on-Avon. It simply is not working.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
All of you, I believe, have been involved in quite detailed discussion with Government on planning issues in the lead-up to the establishment of the NPPF, earlier this year. Can you tell the Committee what consultation and discussion you had with the Government about the provisions in clause 1, before it was announced that they were going to be introduced?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Can you tell the Committee when you had that discussion?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
September this year?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Literally, a month before the Bill was announced.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Would you have expected, as professionals in the field, to be consulted about the mechanisms proposed to improve performance before they were introduced as part of legislation, normally?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
But as far as your experience of clause 1 is concerned—I do not want to get it wrong; it is right the Committee should hear this—you were not part of any prior consultation about how it would work and what the provisions would do to improve performance, essentially before it was announced.
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
There has been a lot of generalisation—broad brush things—saying, “If you do something quickly it means your quality goes down” and talking about examples of section 106 not being a blocker. I suggest you speak to NHS trusts, which are trying to develop property, and refusing to do any affordable housing as a consequence of that section. Frankly, given the number of stalled sites, is not the consequence of a lot of your logic that there would be no development, no regeneration and no community benefit at all?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
You suggest I am being disingenuous. I am just replaying literally the words that you said, with broad generalisations as opposed to evidence. I am giving you one example: NHS trusts in Suffolk Coastal—absolutely no affordable housing, else the development will not go ahead, and you will not get your new health centre. That is the kind of thing that is happening. We are also being told that if you do something quickly, there are concerns about quality. What you are trying to suggest is really broad, as opposed to hard evidence of where a planning application that has gone through quickly is of poor quality. We have not heard that; we are just hearing some scare stories.
Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside)
Clause 4 will introduce a limit on the information that local planning authorities can require to be submitted with a planning application. Can the panel say what effect that will have on the quality of planning control?
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
Mr Sharp, if a family is living in one of these very few poor-performing planning authorities and has been on the housing list for a very long time, how reassured will that family be to be told that their authority is one of very few?
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
But you would concede that in places where there has been sustained poor performance, it has an absolute impact on the outcome for that family in that community.
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
We are talking about, say, Stratford, where there has been significant stalling for a significant amount of time and, as a consequence, many hard-working families on low incomes are not able to improve their lives.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr Raynsford was developing. First, I want to ask about consultation. In your opinion, would it be better for the Government to have consulted and got the views of planning professionals, local communities and others before coming up with clause 1? Would that not be a more normal process for policy development?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
If work is already taking place on unblocking sites that have stalled, and if we know how to tackle poor performance in planning departments—whether it is being applied or not, because there seems to be some discussion about whether those methods are actually being applied—what is the purpose of clause 1, other than to threaten local authorities into a situation where they feel they must approve every single application, otherwise it might be overturned on appeal and they will pick up a negative metric?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
But my question is whether clause 1 is now delivering a risk that totally inappropriate developments will be approved simply because local authorities are worried that their decisions will be overturned on appeal.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
Perhaps one of the toughest requirements of the NPPF was the need to have a local plan in place. A consequence of that has been a huge rush to complete local plans, which in many cases have been outstanding for years and years. Is not clause 1, in essence, doing the same job in relation to Departments’ performance on planning applications?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
It might be worth rehearsing the evidence that your organisations gave when the Localism Act 2011 and the NPPF were going through on your fears about the imposition of local plans and the consequences of not having a local plan. It seems that the evidence you are giving now about clause 1 is very similar to the evidence you were giving then about the requirement for a local plan. I am just asking you whether there is any genuine difference between having an NPPF that says if you have no local plan all hell will break loose and clause 1, which says that if you are an underperforming authority the Secretary of State may step in.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
Could I move on to my second area of questioning?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Which is?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
It relates to the viability and phasing point that Trudi Elliott raised.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Let me go to Paul Blomfield, who wants to follow on from what we have just been discussing. I will then give you the opportunity to introduce that subject.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I want to pursue Roberta’s line of questioning on clause 1. We are getting a picture that clause 1, in your view, is not based on any evidence that would lead us to believe that it will effectively address the issues of concern. I am conscious that Dr Ellis said a little while ago that he was worried about unintended consequences, and I think someone said earlier that concerns had been expressed that the clause would lead to perverse outcomes if we narrowed an assessment of performance against two such limited criteria.
Could you all reflect on what perverse outcomes or unintended consequences you think there might be?
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
Can I be clear about your definition of a poorly performing planning authority? We have had hints about that, but what would be your definition?
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
By customer, you mean developer.
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
How concerned are you that the number of major planning applications—that is, nine units plus—being approved in the 13-week period has nosedived to 57% in the past year?
Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)
What in your professional view is the current public perception of planning? What could the consequence of that public perception be if clause 1 was implemented and if the large-scale development of residential projects was taken into the national policy framework?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I shall pick up the points to which I alluded before. Viability versus phasing—it is quite a seductive argument that maybe we are picking the wrong test, viability, and that it might be phasing. But the work trust has just come into the conversation, and I think many local members of planning committees and so on would have quite a lot of concerns if the way of solving the problem were to be to say to developers that they can build the big, expensive houses first and do the roads, schools and affordable housing second. Companies go bust, they change their plans and things alter. I am not sure that is quite as strong a line of discussion as you put to us.
I am really interested to understand whether you think there is a problem that is not being addressed or there is not a problem, and how we would actually steer our way through that in order to finish up at the end of the day with more homes built in as short a time as possible.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Dr Ellis has twice drawn our attention to clause 21 and I want to bring the discussion round to that clause. Could the panel tell the Committee what they feel about the likely impact of clause 21? We have already heard Dr Ellis’s fears about the removal of decision making from local democratically elected bodies. In particular, may we have a response on how easy it will be to define schemes of national significance? Secondly, what will be the potential impact on out-of-town as against town centre development decisions?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Before the witnesses answer, may I draw their attention to the fact that we have four minutes left, which divides nicely between four people?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for the thoughtful and detailed way in which they have answered some very probing questions.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
For the record, please will the new witnesses introduce themselves?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
I welcome the panel members. I will start by asking for your opinions about the consequences of implementing clause 21, which is about bringing commercial and business into the national infrastructure policy.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Thank you. That is helpful.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Okay. Can I just pick up on a point made by Mr Owen? I was struck by your saying, “the right sort of projects”. Some of us are struggling with what the right project might have to be to be caught under the clause, and particularly what the threshold might be to move something from local to national determination. Can you help the Committee by saying what might be appropriate?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
May I speak to Mrs Learmonth? Some groups claim that the provision in clause 7 will harm rural landscapes and impact tourism. Are their concerns justified?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
What is the cost to communities of delayed or blocked applications?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
Do not assume we know.
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
There has been a lot of talk about how everything could be put underground. I understand why people would say that about optic fibre and similar. One of the benefits of 4G surely must be mobile broadband, which, in my constituency, I would consider will be absolutely critical. Do you have concerns that there are barriers to more infrastructure above ground at the moment, which this legislation can help with?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Can I have a quick follow-up? I am interested that you keep talking about planning barriers. I wonder whether the local community would ever think of these as legitimate concerns about what cabinets might look like. After all, we are talking about very environmentally sensitive areas. Would you accept that there should be better ways of negotiating with local communities on what is appropriate for areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks? Would you accept that clause 7, as it is written, will not limit itself to broadband?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
As it is written, it does not limit itself to broadband; it includes electronic communications.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Miss Knight, your members generate more than 90% of UK electricity and supply up to 26 million homes, I am given to understand. I am particularly interested in clause 22, “Postponement of compilation of rating lists to 2017”. I am also interested in your letter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and to the Business, Innovation and Skills Minister, who joins us this morning. You wrote on 29 October:
“Government policy and regulatory certainty is crucial. The decision to postpone appears to have been made without consultation and is likely to have an adverse impact on many of our members…there is a risk of plant closure. High business rates may well lead to higher wholesale prices, which will ultimately be passed through to business and residential customers. This will not be welcomed at a time when household budgets are already squeezed…We would urge that this matter is reconsidered”.
You conclude by saying that you would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. Have the Ministers come forward and discussed the matter with you?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
But three weeks on from writing that letter, you are still of the view that the Government’s decision to postpone revaluation of business rates is going to lead to an increase in electricity bills for people out there.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
You have changed your view?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
You said in your letter that the proposed break in precedent has the potential to lead to less certainty at a time when that is important to business. The Government are claiming that the postponement of business rate revaluation is providing certainty; your letter clearly states that it is providing uncertainty. Which is it?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Just briefly and finally, is there still a risk of plant closure?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
I think that the public will be surprised to learn that you believe the value of energy networks and power stations has fallen by more than average when their bills are shooting through the roof. Can you explain why you think your business rates would fall?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Can I bring the panel back to clause 21 and raise four specific issues? First, on the definition, could you give us your view on how to best define which projects should be treated as of national significance and brought within the regime? Secondly, on exclusions and separate regimes, which you have already alluded to, there is the exclusion of housing, which would compromise mixed-use developments and the separate regime where there is an energy component. Thirdly, there is the need for national policy statements, which was very much stressed by Dr Ellis from the Town and Country Planning Association in his earlier evidence, which you may have heard. Do you agree with that? If there is not a national policy statement, how can the inquiry be limited, as it should be under the 2008 Act regime? Fourthly, could you give any views that you may have on how this will impact on the implementation of policy in relation to town centre as against out-of-town development. Sorry, that is a very big range. I thought that it was better to give you the questions and let you come back, rather than do follow-ups.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Four questions. I do not know who wants to make a start.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
This was the point that Angela Knight made, which was that where there was an energy component, there would be the likelihood of a separate regime.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Maybe Angela Knight would like to clarify the evidence that she gave earlier, which gave a slightly different impression.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
Can I pursue that? Given the controversial nature of many such developments—I am thinking particularly of out-of-town developments—which might be seen to be undermining the viability of the local town centre, what do you think is the likelihood of judicial review, because of the number of uncertainties, which, in a sense, you have alluded to in your evidence and which have come out in our earlier discussion?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
In view of the fact that we have not taken up all our allotted time, unless there are any other themes that anyone wishes to raise, I thought it might be appropriate, if the witnesses felt that there were any areas they had come prepared to cover and have not had the opportunity to do so, they could add to what they have already said. There is no obligation.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
As there are no more questions, this brings us to end of the business for this morning.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Taylor Wessing, Working Families, the Trades Union Congress and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Before I ask the first member of the Committee to ask a question, I remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that they must stick strictly to the timings agreed under the programme order that the Committee has agreed, which means that this sitting will end on the dot, no later than 3 pm. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves quickly to the Committee.
Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)
Good afternoon, panel. Can you tell the Committee how much consultation there was on this particular proposal before the Bill was published?
Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)
May I ask each panel member what you think the risks are, not just to the employee, but to businesses, if they take up the employee ownership schemes?
Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)
I have one last question. Will the employee-owner contracts be completely voluntary? Will they encourage employers to hire more staff?
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
I would like two points of clarification. First, to Sarah Veale, on the stripping away of rights, am I right in thinking that the working time regulations and the current discrimination law would not be affected at all under these proposals, and would still stand? Is that correct?
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
The second question is to Paul. I worked in the private sector for 10 or 12 years. When you move to different stages of employment—I did not quite get there, but if you become a partner in a professional services firm, for example—your employment conditions change quite significantly, and you perhaps have some inducements with respect to shares and so on. Is it not quite commonplace in many organisations for there to be an evolving set of incentives and pay packages, and varying responsibilities and rights that go with it? It is projected as though the provision is a complete break with everything.
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
But this is a choice as well.
Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside)
This is a question on the voluntary element of the clause. As this is a growth Bill, my concern that I would like the witnesses to address is about the effect this would have on wider employment issues, outside the people who are subject to this bargaining or voluntary element. As has already been said, the Government are saying that it is completely voluntary. If the clause stood, what would the panel say would enable any safeguards for people? Are there any that can be put in place?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Before we go any further, I will just let our witnesses know that in the next 10 minutes there may be a vote on a ten-minute rule Bill. If there is, I will have to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes, but the session will still finish at 3 o’clock. You should just bear that in mind.
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Clearly, there is not a lot of enthusiasm from the witnesses for the employee ownership part of the Bill. However, if Parliament were minded to go ahead with this part of the Bill, what sort of safeguards would you like to see? What safeguards would you think were the most important to preserve?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
You will be aware that this Bill is called the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. I work on the assumption that this employee-owner issue falls into growth section of that title. Starting with you, Sarah, do you think that this will improve economic growth?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Damage rather than growth.
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Okay. So there is no evidence to suggest that a provision along those lines would promote jobs or economic growth, and the evidence is the reverse. A Minister said recently:
“By responding to the flexible needs of fast growing companies, it will help them take people on, providing a real incentive for employers and employees.”
Is there any reality in what she said?
Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)
Any other comments on that, briefly? No.
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
We have heard evidence from employer organisations saying that the measure is only going to be for a particular part of the market; it will not be general. I think that witnesses such as Sainsbury’s have already said that it is not for them. Clearly, the question is this: in principle, are you against entrepreneurial firms taking this opportunity to have employees owning the company and therefore having a big stake in it, but exchanging that ownership for some of their other rights? We have already heard that they do not acquire those rights for two years in some cases. What is your principal objection here? I do not see what there is. This will not be for everyone. It is not for the whole country; it will be for particular niche firms. Where is your objection?
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
But would you have an objection to people being heavily motivated, because they part-own the company, to work well for the company and actually enhance their share and stake in it?
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
So you want to see more opportunities, but no trading of rights?
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
Sorry, can I pick you up on that point? That is not necessarily going to be the case. At the moment, we have not seen the design of schemes. Surely, that would be one of those areas where employees would expect to see an opportunity to have a say in how the company is run.
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
Ms Jackson, am I right in saying that the position on flexible working and the rights to flexible working applies only to companies over a certain size?
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
Okay. Thank you.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
I am interested in the origins of the clause. You have all said that you were not consulted about the proposal. Indeed, if you had been consulted, from the evidence you have given us, you would have advised strongly against it. We have not seen much evidence produced to justify it. Would you give your views as to the origins of the proposal, which does not come from experts in the sector and does not appear to be based on objective evidence. Where did this idea come from?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
Ms Veale, I want to explore the consistency of what all members of the panel have said. You said that the Trades Union Congress opposes on principle any idea of trading a share in a business for employment rights. Are you therefore on record as being against all partnerships, which, as your colleague, Mr Callaghan, has explained, do exactly that?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
But is it not the case now that they remove certain of the same employment rights in exchange for a share in the business?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
Just answer the question. Is that not the case?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
But did not Mr Callaghan just explain that he does not have certain rights under employment law? I thought you had said earlier that you would oppose in principle trading away in exchange for a share of the business?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
I am asking Ms Veale a question at the moment. Did he not say that, and did you not say that you opposed it in principle?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
But they are not employees, because they traded away some of their employment rights in favour of a participation in the upside of the firm.
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
So the TUC is happy for certain people who work for big companies to trade away their rights of employment in exchange for a participation in the upside of that organisation. Is that right?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
People are offered a partnership. The partnership has very clear conditions attached. You either accept it or not.
Mr Callaghan, you said that people take on a partnership because it gives them a real meaningful say in the direction of the business. Do you know how many partners PwC has?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
It is several thousand. Do you know how many partners Allen and Overy has worldwide?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
It is roughly the same figure. Do you think that individual junior partners like you, who take up the offer of a participation in exchange for giving up their employment rights, are really having much effect on the future direction of PwC?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
What you have just explained in your evidence is that you expect that this would prove quite expensive for employers to do—which I agree with, by the way—and therefore presumably the logical conclusion is that you would do it only for relatively senior employees who work in a fairly serious role and therefore have a serious stake in the business.
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
Is it therefore not the case—[ Interruption. ] Excuse me, can I ask a question?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Let them answer the question.
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
He has answered my question. I want to ask him another question.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
They are here as witnesses.
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
Okay.
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
Given that that is the case, is it not strange that you said you thought that some employees would be offered a choice that was not really a meaningful choice, such as a choice between having food and not having food? These are relatively senior people who presumably have a track record of employment, who have alternative employment histories. These are not cleaners who are going to be offered a choice between a job with these conditions or no job at all.
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
I put it to you, sir, as somebody who has actually run and set up two such businesses, that the very first people you employ—if you have an emerging start-up business—are people who will be very senior but if, by definition, your first employees are people who will grow into building that business, as that business grows, they rarely are very low-skilled employees. You normally do not have the luxury of that when you are setting up a new internet business. You hire your sales director; you hire your personnel director; you hire your finance director. They are relatively high-flying people.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
I have other people to get in.
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
Do you need to limit it, given that this is an opportunity that has been created in law that people can take advantage of or not, as they like? Other members of the Committee have already said that this is a niche opportunity for niche businesses. Those niche businesses happen to include among them some of the fastest-growing businesses in the economy. Is it not reasonable to create this opportunity, which only certain businesses for certain employees might take up?
Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)
It would be very expensive for those people to do it—
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Hold on.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Thank you, Mr Davies. I understand why the Minister feels so rattled in the face of overwhelming evidence against his proposal.
I will give you the opportunity to answer the questions. Following on from that theme, if indeed this was a proposal about a very small category of niche employees in niche companies, would you be so worried on the basis that that is not the understanding of the legislation before us?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
May I move to a different aspect of the issue—one that the Minister in his questioning to promote employee ownership will no doubt take account of? The head of the US National Center for Employee Ownership, which I understand is one of the leading groups in the world promoting share ownership, talks about the American terrain, and says that there is clearly a lot of employee ownership in our country, but not one of these employers or plans asks employees to give up any employment rights. Are you aware of anywhere else in the world where there is this trade of rights for shares? If not, why do you think that is?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Why do you think that would be?
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
I want to pick up where Nick Boles left off. When I became a partner in Ernst and Young, I did not take any legal advice. It was not the done thing to take legal advice. I did not need to take legal advice. I did not review the rights that I would get. I knew that I would be gaining a certain amount of additional income, although that was something that you could not tell in advance. The remuneration was placed at about the same level as that of the senior manager that I had been before, with an adjustment at the end if there were a profit for the year.
You keep making the contrast between that situation and the company situation, and I think that you have got this completely out of perspective. You keep saying that if you join a small company—a start-up company—the shares may have no value. Well, if you join a small partnership, the partnership will have no value. It will need some time—at least a year—in order to get that work under way. These are not the decisions that you make when you take these things into account.
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
I am equally sorry that I simply do not accept that. I do not accept that the man in the street does not know what rights he is giving up. That is inconceivable.
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
We can argue about this for ever, I suspect, and we will no doubt argue about it more in Committee. It is not just for people with exceptional skills or exceptional interests in an area to take this forward. It would have been extremely useful to be able to offer anyone who was part of the company this incentive when I started up my own two small companies before I came into Parliament.
John Howell (Conservative, Henley)
I am sorry—
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
I am sorry, but we will have to move on. We have three other people who want to get in, and we have only six or seven minutes left.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
I will try to be quick.
I want to deal with some of the possible complexities of this. If I am this niche worker in this niche go-ahead company and somehow it fails or I decide that it is not suitable and I want to get out and sell the shares, I will not know their value. Will we have a whole set of difficulties with people who want to leave and might want to sell their shares? That is my first question. Will there be additional costs for the company?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
I would like to explore that further, but we do not have time. Maybe we can get some written evidence from you. The second point I want to raise is about the equality impact assessment. I have been quite struck this afternoon by what all of you have said about the implications for women in particular. We do not yet have the equality impact assessment, although I understand that one is being done at the moment. Clearly, that is something that you think should be taken into consideration before we make a decision on this clause.
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
It feels a little bit like doomsday scenarios are being painted here. Given that certain rights will continue to be guaranteed, such as those covered by anti-discrimination laws, it feels like a somewhat excessive reaction. Mr Callaghan, I understand that your firm is active in Tech City. Multiple tech business owners and founders have publically welcomed these proposals—I am thinking about people such as Mike Lynch from Autonomy—saying that this is potentially very exciting. What will you be advising your current and future clients in Tech City?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
But you do accept that there are people who think this could work, including company founders, and that they are quite excited by the prospect of trying to make it work.
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
I understand that the outcome of the consultation is due soon, although I do not know. I suppose I am just concerned because this is an innovative proposal. I appreciate why people are concerned, but why step in and be a barrier when people are willing participants? That is what I am trying to understand.
Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)
I think that it is becoming quite clear that this could be the first Bill in history that comes into law before the impact assessment or the consultation has been published. I have one very quick question for Mr Callaghan. When you made the decision to become a partner of the firm that you were employed by, was it a voluntary decision?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
If this scheme does come into play, are there any safeguards for employers or employees that you think can be put in place to make it work?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. On behalf of the Committee I thank all the witnesses for joining us today.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
I welcome our new witnesses. Before we ask the first questions, could I ask each of the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly to the Committee?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
I remind everybody that this session will finish no later than 4 pm.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
I add my welcome to the panel. Could you start by telling us what you think will be the environmental impact of the measures in the Bill?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Thank you. You have raised a number of clauses, and we will probably come back to them later. I want to follow up something about clause 7. At an earlier sitting, the representative from the Broadband Stakeholder Group sought to reassure me about the possible impact on the environment of this clause by saying that a code of practice was going to be drawn up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and that that would prevent inappropriate cabinets from being placed, and that it would be restricted to broadband only. Are you reassured? Should I be reassured by those comments or do you think that there are still grounds for concern about how clause 7 is constructed?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
I come back to town and village greens. All the evidence that I have heard so far has tended to be supportive of the direction of travel within the Bill as currently drafted, but you express concern, Mr Spiers, about the possible impact on providing protection for areas of space that are treasured by local communities. Can you explain a little bit more about that?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
So do you think that there is any evidence that registration of town and village greens is delaying the planning process, is an irritant or is an obstacle that should not be there?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
There is a real danger, in your view, that as it is drafted local people are likely to lose local amenity space, without going through a proper process of challenge.
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Adrian Penfold, giving evidence this morning, seemed to suggest that he felt that the balance was still achieved in what was now in the legislation and, indeed, said that he thought the current proposed legislation was better than what he had originally—
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
So you believe that unless the balance is tweaked back towards local people, as currently drafted the town and village green proposals are against the thread of localism that we ought to be supporting.
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Thank you.
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Apologies for dragging us back to clause 1; I want your views on it. Mr Spiers, I think you made some allusion in answering a previous question about the criteria that should be applied to local planning authorities when judging whether they are performing or underperforming. Would you accept that local government planning authorities occasionally do underperform—that there is underperformance—and what would be your definition of underperformance?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
What would be your criteria?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
I just wonder whether you have any thoughts about what the criteria might be. We have had discussions with other interested parties about what the criteria might be. I wonder whether you had a view.
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Would you accept that there is a fundamental question about the timeliness of planning applications that emerge from local planning authorities? Would you say that, generally speaking, we do not have enough timeliness in planning applications decisions—that they take too long?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Any other views?
James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Thank you.
Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside)
Going back to clause 7, if you do not mind, the written evidence from the Campaign for National Parks points out the possible threat to the very important economic value of tourism by any intrusive telecommunications masts, or whatever. How valid a concern does the panel feel that is in relation to the clause?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I could comment on the box issue, but perhaps I will go back to the point I was going to make, which relates to the village green point that Mr Spiers raised. You seemed to be somewhat dismissive of the impact of every planning authority having a local plan, which is required under the national planning policy framework, with the opportunity for neighbourhoods to develop neighbourhood and parish plans and the opportunities that that would give for village greens to be listed and registered and signalled. You did not comment on the provision in the Localism Act 2011 for the capacity for individuals and neighbourhoods to list areas of local amenity value. I was a little dismayed by that, because you seemed to be thinking that it was only a kind of handbrake-turn solution that would work, when surely what we are trying to do here is to identify and embed areas of amenity value to localities at a much earlier point in the planning system and the decision-making process.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
You do not think that the provision in the Localism Act for neighbourhoods to list areas of local amenity value is going to do the business?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
But I am not sure what evidence you would be expecting to see.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
Wearing another hat I would be interested to get some feedback on that. As I see it, the provision is tidying up where we have duplicate provisions for getting village greens on the statute book, for want of a better word. The provisions that are being taken out have been replaced by what is in the Localism Act and by the capacity that neighbourhoods and parishes now have to develop plans. I know that that is a process that the CPRE is directly engaged in. It would be really helpful to the Committee to hear more of the case that you are deploying, which cuts across my understanding of the reality on the ground.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
But the listing of local amenity value land is not dependent on having a neighbourhood plan. That is a listing process.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
May I bring in Mr Edge? You have been sitting patiently. I thought your written evidence was very thoughtful, and I would like to give you an opportunity to expand on it. First, you make the general point, if I am correctly interpreting your evidence, that periods of reform are often followed by periods of uncertainty while the reforms bed in. Such uncertainly should, therefore, be kept to a minimum. That seems to be a general principle. Then you go on to talk about the difficulties that onshore wind developers have in getting consent, and you say that you therefore might be tempted to be sympathetic to the Government’s approach of redirecting applications from poor-performing authorities. However, you then say that you are not sure that this is the right way to go about it and you think that some sort of incentive might be the right way forward. Could you elaborate on all that and tell us how you see the development of onshore wind happening, which clearly is important to your members?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
May I now turn to Dr Stone and the national parks section of clause 5? You have highlighted in your written evidence a concern that clause 5 could inhibit the provision of affordable housing in national parks because of restrictions on the use of section 106. Could you please elaborate on that and tell us what the evidence base is for those fears? What representations have you received from your member parks?
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
I understand some of your concerns, but I am a little puzzled about your first example, because as I understand it, the viability of the scheme would be dependent on the agreement that the property would be transferred at less than market value. If there was a doubt about viability, that would not argue the case for removing the obligation, which would open the property to a higher value.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
I now see the risk. Your proposed safeguard against that—the amendment you are suggesting—should be either an exemption of rural exception schemes or a combination of an extension of the period during which the planning permission would be viable.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
You say in your written evidence:
“We suggest that a pragmatic solution would be to remove the statutory moratorium of five years for applying to renegotiate section 106 agreements, thus enabling applications at any time, while also allowing local planning authorities the option of maintaining the section 106 obligations without modification.”
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
For clarification on the current position where some 106 agreements were formed on the basis of economic conditions that no longer exist, to what extent do you see existing 106 agreements that are in place acting as a disincentive to development in the current climate? Do you see any case for modification or change? Or do you not see that as a reason why development is not taking place?
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
Not in your case, but more generally across the panel.
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
But are they with sufficient speed to deliver the outcomes in terms of housing?
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
I recognise what you said, but if their assessment of the future economic value of that land is higher than that of a revised 106 agreement it would not work, would it? They would not want to give that up if they thought it could be worth more at a future date. They would be interested in what their obligation is under a revised 106 agreement.
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
What I am challenging is the assumption that your way of doing it will actually deliver the change in behaviour to deliver the social housing that you wish to see.
John Glen (Conservative, Salisbury)
You do it on a different scale, to recognise the unviability of where they are at the moment. Therefore, the obligation is less onerous.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Could I follow up on the point that Mr Edge made? It seems fairly fundamental and we touched on it in an earlier sitting? The assumption in clause 1 is that if decisions are pushed up to the Planning Inspectorate, they will in some way be fast-tracked. Your concern was that that potentially just creates another blockage. From my understanding, the Planning Inspectorate is somewhat slower than councils in considering appeals—over the past year, for example. You made the point that without additional resources we will see no hastening of the system at all, and potentially a slowing down. Are you aware of plans to provide additional resources to the Planning Inspectorate?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Are other members of the panel aware of such plans, or do they share Mr Edge’s concern?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
You would concur with Mr Edge that there is potential not to resolve the speed of consideration of decisions but to create a new blockage.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Do you think that local communities would feel there was the same opportunity to engage if those decisions were made at a national level?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
When the NPPF came out, the CPRE was painting a picture of doom that half the countryside was under threat from excessive development. I get that feeling again this time. I am thinking in particular of broadband. Colleagues have seats in the Peak district. I have about 40% of the AONB at Minsmere —the RSPB—and, frankly, my residents really do want broadband, and mobile, fixed, so I am a bit concerned about all the negativity spouted about broadband clutter. The president of the CPRE lives in Islington. He has probably got broadband. Whoopee doo. We don’t. I am just very concerned about all the negativity. If you just take the evidence this morning from Mrs Learmonth, BT alone has now not installed 2,500 cabinets because of problems with planning. It has just withdrawn them from its plans. Is it not sensible just to say, “We need national infrastructure. Let’s get on with it.”? Why, in particular Dr Stone and Mr Spiers, do you feel that we should not have the permission to go ahead with it?
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
I do not see why this particular clause all of a sudden means that ugly, obtrusive broadband infrastructure will be cluttered everywhere. Why do you anticipate almost the worst scenario? That is what I am struggling with. It seems an overreaction.
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
If I could move further on, if you could speak to some of our offshore energy people, you would hear that they have had to put a lot of work in, doing different things about wayleaves and different permissions here and there, but we know that it has to be done. I am not saying that it should not be done in an appropriate way; but, again, I do not see why this clause stops good code of practice happening, as opposed, perhaps, to the concerns that you are going to have improper development.
Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
It is about hurry up, isn’t it?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
As a Labour party person, I am always interested in clause 4 debates. We have not had one yet, but I think that this afternoon is the first time that clause 4 has been raised. It has made me think that perhaps we are missing something. Do you think that some safeguards need to be put into clause 4 to ensure that necessary information is obtained and that reasonableness is not interpreted in such a way that we may actually miss essential information? What should those safeguards be?
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
To go back to clause 7, we are getting evidence that is contradictory. This morning, the Broadband Stakeholder Group asserted very strongly —I think it has been repeated this afternoon—that there is a significant hold-up of the roll-out of broadband, especially to rural areas, and that is totally the fault of planning, yet we are hearing that there is no real evidence to support that. Can safeguards be put in the Bill, so that we have more reassurance that the environmental quality of an area will not be negatively impacted on by huge cabinets? Unlike the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal, I always think that it is best to consider the worst scenario and have it covered than just cross our fingers and hope that it does not happen.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
If there are no further questions, let us move on to our next panel of witnesses. I thank our witnesses for their time on behalf of the Committee. We will now hear oral evidence from the National Trust, Friends of the Earth and the Campaign for National Parks.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Before we ask the first question, can the witnesses briefly introduce themselves to the Committee?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
I remind everybody that this session will end no later than 5 o’clock.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
I welcome the panel. Can you tell us whether you think the provisions of the Bill enhance or undermine the concept of sustainable development, which is at the heart of the national planning policy framework?