Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2012.

Clause 13 - Restrictions on right to register land as town or village green

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 13, page 15, line 26, after ‘may’, insert ‘subject to consultation’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 52.

Amendment 97, in clause 13, page 16, line 1, leave out from ‘apply’ to the end of line 3 and add

‘in relation to an application under section 15(1) of the Commons Act 2006 which—

(a) is sent before the day on which this section comes into force, or

(b) is in an area which is not covered by an adopted local plan or an adopted neighbourhood development plan.’.

Amendment 98, page 40, schedule 4, leave out lines 21 to 27.

Amendment 99, page 40, schedule 4, leave out lines 38 to 47.

Amendment 100, page 41, schedule 4, leave out lines 27 to 34.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

It is a pleasure, Mr Howarth, to serve under your chairmanship again.

This group of amendments addresses when and why a piece of land should become excluded from registration as a town or village green. The basic premise of clause 13 and schedule 4 is right, but the Minister may have been a little over-zealous and ruled out all land from ever being protected.

Clause 13 gives the Secretary of State the ability to disapply the triggers from a specific piece of land. Amendment 96 would put a requirement on the Secretary of State to set out in published criteria his reasons for choosing to do that. Here we are again—the Secretary of State is grabbing power without setting out his reasoning. He has long lauded transparency and openness, so it is baffling to say the least. There may be pieces of land that should be exempt, but we need to be clear about what the instances are, not least because without that clarity we may not see any improvement in the current situation; community groups will simply turn to the Secretary of State to exclude their piece of land from the triggers to lodge an application.

This would be an ideal place to introduce consultation, whereby local authorities, some of which have clearly had a number of issues with some town and village green applications, could set out examples of when a town or village green was rightly protected. Similarly, aggrieved community groups, which work extremely hard to protect spaces that they believe deserve protection, would have the chance to advise the Secretary of State of the circumstances that should lead to an exemption from the triggers set out in schedule 4.

I am reluctant to ask for more consultation, because on this Bill we seem to have consultation documents coming out of our ears, but it is important in this instance that clear criteria are drawn up on the basis of responses from people on the front line of making applications for village green status. The Minister could help with our deliberations this morning by setting out instances when the Secretary of State may choose to use the power, or at least giving a commitment to consultation, which would enable him to respond in an informed way.

I turn to amendment 97. Evidence to the Committee made it clear that there are inherent tensions in having the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Commons Act 2006 running in parallel. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks, was kind enough in his evidence to quote from a report commissioned by the last Labour Government from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2009. It stated that

“the most significant finding from this research so far is the existence of two parallel systems between which there is minimal communication: the”

town and village green

“registration process and planning system. In our view this seems to be problematic…the processes in each system rarely…take explicit account of issues/decisions in the parallel system, even though they can have significant importance for each other.”

That is true, but without amendment the clause could compound the problem.

When a local or neighbourhood plan has been put in place and the community has been adequately consulted, and we have said several times in Committee that that is not necessarily easy or straightforward, the community is likely to have placed protections on their most valued green space. We accept that where there is a neighbourhood plan and there has been good consultation, that is likely to be the case. However, where that has not taken place the community will not have been through the process of identifying the areas they deem to be most valuable. I am sure we can all come up with instances from our constituencies of communities not being aware of the need to submit a village green application until they see a planning application because they are unaware that it is necessary to do so, or that a particular piece of land could ever be under threat from development.

Without the amendment, communities could find that by the time they have their say on a local or neighbourhood plan the precious spaces they want to protect have already been snapped up. Some members of the Committee seem to be under the impression that if an area is worth developing it will have a neighbourhood plan in place, but that is simply not the case. We wish to encourage neighbourhoods to put in place a neighbourhood plan, but there simply has not been time for them to do that since the Localism Act 2011 was enacted.

When creating previous plans, parish councils may not have considered the issue in enough detail. It is important that local communities have the opportunity and enough time to identify sites they wish to protect. They can then decide which process is most appropriate for them. We want to move to a situation where those pieces of land are designated under a neighbourhood plan process. In the meantime, we want to make sure all communities are able to use the registration processes that are in place at the moment.

Local plans are intended to ensure that we get development in the right places and with community support. To take the right to protect land away from communities before the plan-making process has even begun is no way to foster their trust. I urge the Minister to take the amendment away and look at it. We do not want to stop vexatious applications being identified. However, we want to ensure that communities that have not yet identified those very special open spaces are not prevented from being able to protect them simply because they do not know that they are under threat.

Amendments 98, 99 and 100 deal with the trigger events in schedule 4. When one of the eight trigger events that are set out in the schedule takes place regarding a piece of land, that land can no longer be registered as a town or village green. The amendments seek to remove the three triggers that we think go too far. As hon. Members might imagine, we have come up with a phrase for the schedule: the Secretary of the State has been trigger happy. He has been listing lots and lots of triggers. We think, “Hang on a minute. We want to reduce some of those triggers.”

Amendment 98 would remove the publication of a draft development plan as one of the triggers for the same reasons we talked about for clause 12 and now for clause 13. A draft development plan will not necessarily have been through all the processes of consultation. Simply having a draft plan in place should not prevent communities from being able to bring forward an application for a village green. The draft plan should simply highlight to communities that a site may be at risk from development and it will enable them to put their views forward. We think that is much too early in the development process to rule out the opportunity to propose a particular piece of land. Amendment 99 would remove the publication of a draft neighbourhood development plan as a trigger for exactly the same reasons. Amendment 100 would remove an application for development consent as a trigger.

All three amendments relate to events that do not have to be public and to documents that might not have been consulted on. The whole point of consultation over a draft plan or planning application is to ensure that the community is on board and to see if more suitable changes can be made. As such, consultation is an important stage and should not be bypassed by any trigger event.

We all know that the Minister, as I have said, is keen on consultations, particularly those that come late in the day. We do not mind. It is not something I would suggest or write down as good practice to be adopted by Ministers, but if we are to have from the Minister consultations that appear minutes before the Committee sits to consider them, I think he should allow us to make a plea for consultation on such an important set of circumstances, which could reduce the ability of communities to apply for village greens. We want a consultation on the triggers.

We also want to ensure that whatever process we end up with and whatever trigger events are in place to prevent the registration of village greens, there is proper consultation on them through neighbourhood plans, local plans or applications for development consent. The Opposition do not want to deprive communities of the right to submit a village green application in the large number of instances outlined in schedule 4. We know that there is a need to rationalise the process somewhat, but schedule 4 goes much too far in denigrating the rights of local communities.

The three trigger events covered by the amendments are tantamount to saying that consultation, to get development consent through the documents, is nothing more than due process. Otherwise we have no idea why they were included in the list of trigger events. In reality, it is hardly unknown that a piece of land identified for development in a draft plan is removed when the public are able to express their views. Often enough, a replacement piece of land can be identified instead.

I give an example from my constituency; I am sure that other hon. Members have similar examples. It relates to the building of a school in my constituency, which everyone wanted. The county council, unbeknown to anyone, decided that it wanted to build the school not on the site of the existing school, but on a piece of green land in the middle of the village that had served as a leisure and recreation space for as many years as people could remember. The community had not previously applied to have that piece of land included as a village green, because no one ever thought that it would be under any threat whatsoever. In fact, through a period of negotiation that I was involved in, along with local and parish councillors, a residents group was set up to protect the green space and, critically, to identify another more appropriate site where the school could be built. It was possible. It did not really slow down the development of the new school, because all the other meetings and consultations about the new school being built were dealt with at the same time.

It was possible to work with the local authority and eventually, within the time frame that the council had set out, we managed to get the new school on another site that the community was happy with. It was possible to register the village green, and in the process the community decided that it wanted a new children’s play area, so we were able to put another group together to work on that.

My point in going through that example is that under the Bill’s proposals it simply would not have been possible to go through such a process, because once the county council had applied for development consent, that would have been the end of the process. We had a harmonious outcome that served the needs of the county council and the local community very well. There is simply no need to go down the drastic route that I think the Minister and the Government are suggesting under schedule 4.

We want triggers where the Secretary of State or the local authority can step in if they think that an application is vexatious. There are still five triggers left in schedule 4. However, this is a heartfelt plea from me to the Minister and his team. I do not want communities to find out too late that a bit of land that is really important to them as an open and green space is going to be developed simply because it is in a draft document, and that they are no longer able to go through the registration process either as it exists under current legislation or as is set out with regard to neighbourhood plans.

The triggers have seriously worried many campaigners. The County Durham local access forum wrote to me. We know that the Open Spaces Society is terribly concerned about the inclusion of triggers. Similarly, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Ramblers, and the Friends of the Lake District all support a smaller set of trigger events. Those organisations are not being hysterical and unreasonable. They have looked at the provisions in the schedule, particularly the large number of trigger events.

The amendment would be a very minor change to the legislation. It would still provide the Secretary of State with lots of circumstances in which he could step in to take a village green out of the registration process. It would ensure that local communities are given time. When they see an important piece of land in a draft development plan or someone seeking development consent on it, they would be able to make their views known and decide whether it is reasonable for them to go ahead and register the piece of land.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Howarth. It is good to be back for the Committee’s final week. I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, whose arguments are supported by organisations such as the Open Spaces Society, the CPRE and others. At the heart of the clause and the group of amendments is the balance between local community interests and the interests of development, which is always difficult to achieve. My hon. Friend’s amendments would help to improve that balance. I want to highlight some of the huge concerns of local groups up and down the country, as well as national organisations representing community and, in particular, rural interests.

Bristol Parks Forum submitted evidence about Whitchurch village green, and how it was registered as a town green after it was shown that it had been used as a right for more than 20 years. It had been earmarked for development, and planning applications were sought. The forum fears that those measures would shift the balance of risk against local organisations and communities holding valued green space.

The National Organisation of Residents Associations said that clauses 11, 12 and 13

“appear to grant rights to landowners designed to reduce the ability of the community to protect its rights over common land.”

The rights to such common land go back centuries. It continued:

“Current legislation permits open argument over the rights to use common land, and we fear that these clauses will hazard the use by the community of green open space in their environment.”

Those concerns were expressed by groups that are used to defending the interests of local people.

The Woodland Trust said that it

“has grave concerns about the viability of this measure and feels that it will undermine the ability of local communities to protect their green spaces from unwanted developments, including, from our experience valuable ancient woods and important natural habitats.”

It is very important that our woodland and green space is protected into the future. It is about getting the balance right; we need development, but we also need protection, and the issue is where the balance is applied. That is why it is important that these words of caution and concern, made up and down the land by groups involved in these activities for many years, are properly listened to and heard at this point in the decision-making process, so that the Minister and his team can reflect hard on whether the balance is correct.

The Wildlife and Countryside Link says that clause 13

“sets out ‘trigger events’ that can suspend the right to register land as a green. However, almost all of the proposed trigger events are such that the public will not know about them until they have occurred, and it is then too late to submit an application to register a green.”

That is the nub of the issue. If designation for development happens without anybody knowing about it, and they only realise the risk to their green and pleasant bits of land at the time of development, there is a risk that we might get the balance wrong. As my hon. Friend said in her example of school development, proper engagement with communities can result in better outcomes not only for communities but for development itself.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on why we must remove these triggers. Does he agree that the timing for the Government’s introduction of these measures is completely wrong? Neighbourhood planning has not been rolled out enough or properly resourced across the country for neighbourhoods to know that they can protect and designate green spaces. At the very least, the Government should not be seeking to do this for some years.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend is exactly right. As the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis pointed out last week, the neighbourhood planning process has the capability and potential to put everything together in a way that will manage the issues appropriately. However, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out, it is immature—it is in its infancy. In certain areas, it is well-developed, but in many others, it is completely underdeveloped and unknown to local communities. We are in a period of transition and change, and that is when risk is greatest.

Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that although neighbourhood planning is new in that it provides statutory powers, such things as village design statements have been in place in many councils for a long time? In those instances, the local situation is already being looked at and designation is suggested, as opposed to overriding the district council?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Lady is right and makes a good point, but if we were to map where village designs are, we would see that in some areas of the country, there are good concentrations of village design in place, while in others, it is less effective. It is patchy, and we should not imperil communities that have taken areas of green open space for granted for many years. They may not have taken advantage of the opportunities, and they could suddenly find that the designation has changed, only realising when the development is taking place. Such communities should not be penalised; they should be treated equally and fairly. At a point of transition and development, it is particularly important that we strain every sinew to get it right, ensuring that the appropriate protections are in place, so that communities can represent their interests in order to protect their green open spaces, rather than find that they should have done something some years ago, when some of them were not living there and did not know what has happening. They may discover that they have lost an opportunity, because they did not realise that they had it at the time. That is a crucial point.

The Wildlife and Countryside Link concluded on the clause:

“Link believes that this is a far too heavy-handed approach, and one that will kill off genuine applications.”

I stress “heavy-handed”, and that it will “kill off genuine applications”, because that is the real concern. We need to ensure that we do not accidentally create future problems by acting in haste now, because of an urgency of the moment that has been identified, which would imperil green open spaces.

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

My hon. Friend makes a strong case, but I want to highlight the reasonableness of many of the organisations that he has cited. Does he agree that it is wrong to categorise the argument as one in which it is said that either no action should be taken, or that the action taken should be what is proposed by the Government? The organisations that have expressed concerns recognise the points that Penfold made, broadly endorsing that approach, but they are concerned that the proposals go too far. Does he agree that if the Government were to rethink the issue and draw up proposals that are much closer to Penfold’s recommendations, it would alleviate many of the organisations’ concerns?

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend is right. Such organisations do not want to do battle. By their nature, they are the lifeblood of Great British society; that is where they belong and where they are. They are reasonable and they recognise that the Penfold proposals would do much to reduce—or indeed, eliminate—the opportunity for vexatious applications. I think, however, that the Government are probably overplaying the nature of vexatious applications. Although nobody wants such applications—the Committee is unanimous on that point—it is sometimes in people’s interests to exaggerate the threat of certain conditions to rush through changes that we may regret at leisure if we get it wrong. As Andrew Motion pointed out at the weekend, once a green space is built on, it “is gone for ever”. I note that the Minister is smiling as I refer to the former poet laureate, who is now doing a very good job as chair of the CPRE.

Let me conclude by reminding hon. Members of the witness evidence that we heard. Ingrid Samuel of the National Trust said:

“One of our concerns is that it is quite difficult to predict the impact of these clauses on public open spaces and towns and village greens.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 155, Q357.]

This is all about impact. If we get it wrong, those green spaces will be lost for ever—the chair of the CPRE is right. That will not only be to our detriment today, but to the detriment of future generations for ever.

Naomi Luhde-Thompson of Friends of the Earth told us:

“I think it sends the wrong signal. Town and village green spaces are incredibly important to sustainable communities.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 156, Q357.]

We need to recognise that these are very valuable commodities to communities. They are very important now and will be very important in the future.

Shaun Spiers of the CPRE told us:

“The way the Bill is drafted, however, more or less removes any possibility that anyone would be able to get town and village green status for a site, so it puts the balance far too much against local people trying to protect green space.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 141, Q320.]

This is all about balance, protection, green space and development. I do not believe that Ministers are trying to get the balance wrong; I do not believe that that is the intention, but often we are caught—bitten—by unintended consequences. The purpose of this debate is to make it clear that we fear such consequences.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend outlines very clearly for the Committee some of the issues that will arise. Has he noticed that the impact assessment actually allows for unintended consequences? It says:

“Any unintended consequences of the reforms will be monitored through the continuation of the biennial Town and Village Green application activity survey of commons registration authorities.”

Does he agree that the unintended consequences are likely to be village greens and open spaces going, which is not acceptable? It is what we are seeking to avoid with the amendments.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend is exactly right. They may be unintended consequences, but they are highly predictable. We can see what they will be, and they are things that we would all regret. We should take action now to get the balance right. The leaders of bodies such as the CPRE, the Woodland Trust and the National Trust should not have to say these things. These bodies are concerned to protect our natural assets and they have huge experience and expertise, which we ignore at our peril. They should not have to say, as Mr Spiers said to us, that the Bill’s drafting

“puts the balance far too much against local people trying to protect green space.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 141, Q320.]

Those are important words, and we need to ensure that we get the balance right. Although the monitoring of unintended consequences is to be welcomed, we do not want to find ourselves in the future saying, “I told you so.” That is not where we want to be. We want to be in a place where we get the balance right now and we get rid of the vexatious use of town and village green designations. We need to eliminate that, but we also need to get the balance right so that we do not damage our green and pleasant land and our communities in the meantime.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Howarth. You have returned, if I may say so, to hear some pretty wild language this morning. The Government have been accused of being over-zealous, grabbing power and being heavy-handed and trigger happy. Those are just some of the epithets that I noticed. This clause, as I hope I made clear in the clause 12 stand part debate, is about protecting the integrity of the planning system. I remind the Committee that these clauses have the wholehearted support of the Local Government Association. I reassure the Committee that the principle at the heart of clause 13 and supporting schedule 4 is entirely reasonable. Decisions about the future of land—whether land should be developed or kept open—should be taken through the democratically accountable planning system, where all views can be heard and a balanced, sustainable decision can be reached.

We have heard much this morning about the need for the decision to be balanced. The current situation is indefensible. It is not right that, where a community wants to see affordable homes or a new manufacturing facility or a new school and agrees to that, its democratic decision can be blocked by an application to register land as a town or village green. The purpose of our reforms is not to stop all town or village green applications, but simply to stop town or village green applications being used where a planning permission has been granted or where a planning application has been publicised and the decision is still to be made.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

With respect, the Minister is old enough to remember the memorable speech by the former leader of his party, the previous Conservative Prime Minister, who spoke about warm beer, swallows overhead and cricket on the village green. Does the Minister not feel that this part of the Bill on village greens does not take us back to basics, as that Prime Minister would have wanted, but is a betrayal of the great British people and his predecessors?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

No. The hon. Gentleman does Sir John Major a disservice. He was a strong upholder and supporter of local government, he served in local government and in his time as Prime Minister he certainly did his bit to protect the local government system, and that is what we are trying to do. These reforms will prevent applications to register land as a green where the land is identified for potential development in local and neighbourhood plans, including draft plans on which the local community is consulted.

We have listened to the concerns of those who think that this issue is a priority, such as the Hastoe Group, which is working hard to provide people with affordable homes, the National Housing Federation and the British Property Federation, which is why organisations as diverse as those groups, and many others too, all underline the urgent need to reform the greens registration process. The Local Government Association said in its briefing note:

“The current financial climate makes the resolution of this issue”—

using greens legislation to block development—

“more urgent than ever as delays can render new local growth initiatives and housing developments unviable, completely stalling such projects.”

I agree.

Let me turn in more detail to the Opposition amendments before coming to Government amendment 52. Amendment 96, which was tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham, would require the Secretary of State to consult whenever he makes an order to change the particular circumstances in which a town or village green application could go ahead, when it would otherwise have been prevented. I appreciate the importance of consultation, but I also believe in avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape where we can. The amendment would mean that on any occasion, for whatever reason and however trivial the change, the Government would be required to carry out consultation. Consultation is not a cost-free option and at times it simply may not be necessary. We need to be discerning and consult when there is something substantial to consult on. Future Secretaries of State should not be required to consult on something so minor that no one wants to be consulted on it.

Amendments 97 to 100 further complicate the interaction between the two systems—town and village green applications and the planning system—that we are trying to simplify. They would undermine the ability of local communities to support and promote development in their areas through local and neighbourhood plan making. They would put at risk the renewal in infrastructure that we need to support sustainable growth, and I shall explain why.

Amendment 97 would limit the new provisions to areas where there is an adopted local plan or a neighbourhood development plan, meaning that applications to register land as a town or village green could be made while the local or neighbourhood plan was being consulted on. I should remind the Committee that the plan-making process already provides for consultation and should not be undermined by the quite separate process of town and village green registration. I am not sure whether this is the intention of the hon. Member for City of Durham, but decisions about the future use of the land would not then be taken through the plan-making process; they would be decided on the back of an application to register land as a green.

Good progress is being made in local plan making and in the local take-up of neighbourhood planning, but not all places have adopted a local plan. It is for the hon. Lady to explain why people engaged in shaping planning decisions in those areas should be penalised and cut out by the retention of the worst features of the current town and village green application process.

Schedule 4 sets out a number of trigger events, including one at the time a draft plan is publicised, for formal consultation by the local planning authority. That is to allow decisions about the future shape of a community area to be taken through the proper plan-making process. We chose those trigger points at the beginning of the process because that is when local people can make formal representations about whether areas of land should be developed or kept open, taking account of the full range of relevant issues, including by balancing the need for development against environmental concerns. In many cases, communities will have earlier and more informal opportunities to shape the consultation draft.

Decisions on the plan’s content will be made in the public interest, having regard to relevant representations and considerations, including national policy and the protection that that gives to open spaces. It will allow for the identification of land that is wanted for development and of land that is not. It would be wrong to allow applications to register land as a green to cut across that process.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I appreciate that the Minister is outlining the Government’s case in some detail, but does he accept our concern that the first time a village or local community know that their green is under threat might be through the lodging of a draft plan or, indeed, of an application for development? Under schedule 4, the community would have to argue with the local authority and the plan makers, through the consultation process, to have that designation for development taken out of the draft plan. In a sense, their hand will be severely weakened in that negotiation process if they cannot register the green or the space for protection. That is what the amendments are designed to address—the fact that they will not be able to negotiate their case.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Order. Last week, I said that interventions should be brief and not the occasion for a further speech. I hope that the Committee takes note of that. If Members fail to do so, I will take appropriate action.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Thank you, Mr Howarth. I do not doubt the hon. Lady’s intention in tabling the amendments. Indeed, we have been discussing how to get the right balance. However, there is an assumption behind what she has just said that the local community is not involved in the planning process. The local community will be involved and consulted as that process is undertaken. The trigger events are in the right place, I think, at the start of the consultation. If we wait until after the planning decision is taken, the green application can be made in the meantime, which would then take years to consider, and even if unsuccessful, it could still delay or block the development.

Let me turn to the detail of amendments 97 to 100. Amendment 97 would mean that the planning process continued to be subservient to the narrower set of considerations that a green application has to be judged against. That cannot be right. We have the same concerns about amendments 98 and 99, which would significantly undermine the benefits of the changes we are making. I find it hard to believe that Opposition Members really intend to undermine the process of community engagement that is at the heart of local plan making, whether the neighbourhood or the local plan, but that is what amendments 98 and 99 could do. They could close down the opportunity for local people to engage meaningfully in local or neighbourhood planning.

Where an application to register land as a green is made in the middle of the consultation on the plan, amendments 98 and 99 would also stop the local community having their say on whether land should be protected from development or whether the community interest is best served by the land being allocated for development. Were the amendments made, land could, in effect, be registered as a town or village green immediately, and there would be no point in asking the community through the plan-making process whether they want the land in question to be developed. The decision would have been made for them through the determination of the application for the green, regardless of the need for affordable housing, new jobs, or a new school, as the hon. Lady suggested. None of those would have been a factor in the decision to register the land as a green.

Amendment 100 would remove the protection from town or village green applications that we intend to give to major infrastructure projects between the time when a proposed infrastructure application is publicised and, following acceptance by the Secretary of State, an application is publicised again. It appears that Opposition Members agree that protection should apply once an accepted application is publicised, and I welcome that, but if we are to provide the infrastructure that a growing economy needs, it is important to keep the initial trigger event that amendment 100 would delete. Encouraging early community engagement in shaping major infrastructure projects is a good thing, but amendment 100 would undermine that, because as soon the infrastructure promoter published the proposed application, the whole project could be put in jeopardy by an application to register the land as a green. That cannot be sensible and developers will not see it as sensible.

Finally, let me respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, who was concerned that the proposals may threaten the protection of green spaces, especially ancient woodlands. Let me emphasise firmly that the reforms do not affect existing greens. Existing registered greens are unaffected. The national planning policy framework gives strong protection to ancient woodlands. We have introduced the new local green space designation to give stronger protection to valued green spaces when plans are prepared. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the trigger points may not be right, but the Bill contains powers to amend the trigger events if the system is seen not to be working.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central suggested that the clause ought to be more in line with what Adrian Penfold recommended. However, Adrian Penfold supported these clauses on 20 November when, fairly modestly, he said:

“What is in the Bill is a better way of dealing with it”—

the problem—

“than I came up with.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 88, Q209.]

He is supportive of the amendments.

Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I welcome the opportunity to question the Minister on that point. What would he say to the Open Spaces Society, which concurred with the broad thrust of the Penfold recommendations, but asked for the problem to be addressed by tightening existing regulations and guidance, sifting out poor applications, and introducing time scales, instead of in the way the Government are proposing?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I can only repeat what I said a few moments ago on clause 12 stand part. We all want to reduce vexatious applications, but. more important than that, we have to ensure that the application process for registering new greens does not further undermine the existing planning process, which balances the interests of the community in development against their interests in preserving their local environment. We must tackle that central problem.

In asking the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 96, I should explain the purpose of Government amendment 52, which is a technical amendment, so I will be brief. On commencement, clause 13 prevents development that is permitted or proposed within the planning system from being stymied because of a new application to register. That is achieved through a series of trigger and terminating events set out in schedule 4, as we have discussed. When a trigger event has occurred, no application may be made in respect of that land. Trigger events have corresponding terminating events, which provide that a town or village green application can again be made. To provide future flexibility, the clause also enables the Secretary of State by order to add to or amend the schedule. This minor technical amendment is required to ensure that when a new trigger or terminating event is added by order, we can make provision for events that took place before the order came into force to have effect. The aim is to ensure that if, for example, additional terminating events are needed, the registration of land as a green will still be possible when there is no longer any development permitted or proposed on it.

If Opposition Members do not agree with me about the other amendments, I hope that they will see the sense in Government amendment 52, which is a technical improvement.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am not sure that I consider Government amendment 52 to be minor and technical if it allows the Secretary of State to add to the trigger events, but as I understand “by order”, there will be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise such measures later.

I am disappointed with the Minister’s response to the amendments. The Government’s argument is particularly weak, because it appears to come down to the fact that because there may consultation on a local plan or neighbourhood plan, or because there is a period for communities to comment on a development application, there cannot be a simultaneous discussion about the registration of a village green. That seems bizarre and wholly remote from what would happen in reality. The suggestion that up and down the country, greens are being registered willy-nilly without the local community knowing anything about it is frankly ridiculous.

For the sake of protecting communities and their greens, I urge the Minister to take the matter away and to think about it again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Although we have discussed the clause quite a lot already, I want to make a few comments on clause stand part. The Committee can see from the amendments tabled so far that it is our view that the Minister’s Department has perhaps gone too far. He seems to have assumed that all town and village green applications are submitted to stop development. Although we have queries about the impact assessment, it nevertheless sets out the clear case that about 30% to 50% of applications are submitted as a result of a planning application and that 5% to 15% are in areas already covered by a local plan. Even if we assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that none of the applications submitted in response to the planning application was in an area covered by a local plan, about 30% of applications for town and village green status would still be considered genuine but would be ruled out under this set of circumstances.

I remind the Minister that town and village greens are not necessarily the enemy of enterprise that they are being presented as in this Committee. Many people really treasure their local green and want to keep it there for future generations to enjoy. In fact, town and village greens can be hugely beneficial. Friends of the Earth said:

“Town and village greens are important components of sustainable communities. Exemplary ‘green’ developments particularly in Freiburg (Germany), include shared green space for a given number of properties to include wildlife, play and recreational space.”

That type of thinking is not reflected in the Government’s comments.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Does the hon. Lady not agree that she could substitute “town and village greens” with the words “local green space” which is the provision in the Localism Act 2011 and which would allow her people who thought that they had just discovered such a space to register it via the procedure in the Localism Act? It is extremely difficult to understand what she is saying by way of distinguishing those two cases. Is not it simply a matter of tidying up and providing a much better procedure through the Localism Act?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier, he would have known that I dealt with that point. Indeed if the neighbourhood planning process was rolled out right across the country, if that had been happening for a number of years and if it had been properly resourced or was to be properly resourced in the future, then he might have a case; we have already conceded that. The point is that, in the real world, neighbourhood planning has not been rolled out uniformly and is not adequately resourced, so at this point in time, it cannot be used as a reason to remove the important protections for communities that are there at the moment. The Minister may shake his head, but I look forward to writing to him with the first case, because, at some stage in the future, we will find that we do not have time to put in place a neighbourhood plan before a green space is threatened.

This is what we know: in its report, Friends of the Earth says that

“There has been a reported loss in almost all the authorities surveyed in the report of green space in urban areas. More of these spaces should be created rather than less, and local authorities should ensure that protected green spaces are an integral part of their local plans and of any new development over a certain size. Green space is also vital for adaptation and for the enhancement of biodiversity.''

I urge the Minister to look at what has been said by CPRE and others about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We know that greens have benefits.

I should like to raise some questions about how the impact of the clause has been assessed. There is no reference in the impact assessment of the value to public health or well-being of having access to green space. The Minister might say that that is too abstract for an impact assessment—a Government document—but I contend that it is no more abstract than calculating the benefits that will accrue as the result of developing village greens, especially when the Government simply have not considered the downside of such a designation. For example, the impact assessment cites the

“avoidance of land value depreciation”

as a substantial side effect, but the problem is not that the land would otherwise depreciate, but that it will appreciate if planning permission is granted. The two are very different, but are not separated in the impact assessment.

Furthermore, due to other reforms the Minister is pushing—particularly the removal of affordable housing developments in 106 agreements for development in particular circumstances—benefits to the local community in terms of affordable housing are likely to reduce further. The way in which the clause and particularly the schedule are constructed is most unfortunate. The impact assessment has not given the Committee the full information it needs to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the clause and schedule. I urge him to look again at the issue.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I rise to emphasise one or two key points that have already been touched upon. It is worth noting that the Commons Act 2006, including section 15, which put in place the town and village green designation, had all-party support in the House of Commons. We need to be careful about changing it in a way that does not maintain that all-party support. It is clear in the debate that there is all-party support for tackling vexatious applications. There have been comments about the number of vexatious applications, but we have not been presented with any analysis.

Town and village green designation is a tough process. People may have a genuine desire for town and village greens, but an application can fail due to one aspect, which is right and proper. Failure to achieve designation does not mean that a claim is vexatious or spurious. A genuine attempt at designation may not meet the criteria when properly applied. We have had a lot of assertion, but little analysis. I fear that what is being put in place, as presented in the evidence of many groups used to working with community groups, is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The measure does not need to be as substantial as this, and we will rue its impact at our leisure. It risks impacting not only on us, but on future generations.

I wish to return to local authorities that own land they wish to develop, which puts them in a difficult position, as it always has. They must ensure that communities are properly consulted and concerns examined. In my constituency, the local authority has been a bit free and easy in how it has treated Ashby pond—an area of natural beauty used for many generations. Town and village green designation provides an additional process that gives a level of protection and challenge to local authorities in such circumstances. I recognise what has been said about the development of the local and neighbourhood planning framework. That should give us the protections we seek when it is mature, but it is not mature at this point. Moving forward too briskly on this may create problems that we regret.

Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)

I rise to make a brief contribution, given your strictures on interventions, Mr Howarth.

In evidence, we heard about a number of cases in which people had sought to use the process we are debating to frustrate development the wider community wanted. I therefore applaud the clause for doing away with restrictions that allow people vexatiously to frustrate development.

While I strongly support the clause, however, I have one concern about the table, which I hope the Minister can deal with. As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe said, the local authority may be the landowner and may also wish to develop the land. Under the provisions in the table, a draft development plan could be published, acting as a trigger event that would frustrate any individual who wanted to register the land as a town or village green.

I can give two examples to highlight my concern: one is from my constituency, and the other is from close to where I live. In my constituency, the local authority has chosen to turn a green space that is widely used by the community into a leisure centre. The centre will be run by a private operator, which will restrict access to the green space for absolutely everyone, charging them for the privilege of using it and frustrating a number of local groups. Under the Bill, no one would be able to register that green space as a town or village green, although people are currently going through that process. My concern is that if the local authority decides in future to publish a potential development plan for a number of years ahead, that will frustrate local people’s ability to gain access to such local areas.

The other example, which I know only too well, is Northwick Park golf course, where a right of way had existed for many years. Local campaigners used the process we are discussing in an attempt to frustrate the setting up of the golf course. Fortunately, through a negotiated arrangement, the right of way was moved. As a result, there was still a right of way, and people still had access to the green space—it was just not the exact green space they originally had. The process dealt with in the clause therefore frustrated that development at the point when it was being decided whether to register it, temporarily preventing a wholesale development that was to the broader benefit of the whole community.

My concern is that when a local authority owns and controls land on behalf of local people, and someone in one of its departments decides to develop the land for leisure, housing or other purposes, that can trigger an event that would prevent local people from being able to register the land for the use they may have made of it for many years.

I therefore ask that we examine what should happen in such cases to ensure that local people have the opportunity to register land for the uses they have made of it over many years, so that they are not suddenly told in a bureaucratic way, “We’re very sorry, but you can no longer register this land for your use because the local authority has decided that it is going ahead with some form of development.” I trust that the Minister can answer that point in his speech.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

May I turn first to the principles behind the clause, and then try to answer some of the specific questions that have been put to me?

The first suggestion is that the Government have somehow cooked up the clause in a hurry to accelerate growth—that is was put together in a rush over the summer. Let me make it clear that the provisions in this and the previous clause are the culmination of several years of consideration and consultation, both under this Government and our predecessor. They were informed by research commissioned by the previous Government, the findings of the Penfold review—also initiated by the previous Government—and by responses to an extensive consultation last year on the options for reforming the registration process. All of that has highlighted the confusion, frustration and unnecessary costs that arise when a decision to develop land through the planning system is second-guessed by an application to register land as a green.

Planning decisions about whether land should be developed or left open are made only after very careful consideration of relevant factors and of the wider public interest. Decisions to develop land through the democratically accountable planning system should not be undermined, and proposed new section 15C of the Commons Act 2006 will ensure that the planning process can take its course without applications for new greens cutting across it. That will remove the uncertainty and delays that are difficult for those in the community who are affected, and it will reduce the financial burden on local authorities in considering applications.

As we have already established, the provisions will prevent new applications to register land as a green where planning permission has already been granted or where a planning application has been publicised and the decision is still to be made. Similar provisions will apply in relation to applications for consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects under the regime provided by the Planning Act 2008. Applications to register land as a green will also be prevented where the land has been identified for potential development in a local plan or a neighbourhood plan, including draft plans that have been formally published for consultation by the local planning authority. I think that the Committee is now clear about the effect of the clause, even if some its members still have reservations about how the clause will operate.

The hon. Member for City of Durham asked me about wider considerations that were not included in the impact assessment on the Bill. They were addressed in the fuller impact assessment of village green reform. If she turns to annex C of that document—page 33—she will see a full analysis of the wider benefits under the categories of health, which was one of her specific concerns, and biodiversity, air quality and non-use benefits.

The hon. Lady suggested that neighbourhood planning is not properly resourced. I have to tell her that real progress is being made. We have some 50 neighbourhood plans that will be in train or being examined by next spring. The whole point of the clause is that that process should not be undermined or cut across by applications for green.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East returned to the issue of land owned by local authorities. A local authority is treated exactly the same as any other landowner. In the cases to which he referred, there would have been full public consultation, even though, as I accept, in the latter case that was some years earlier. I do not want to comment on the two specific cases, because it would not be right to do so, but I am happy to put in writing a reassurance about how the clause will deal with land owned by a local authority.

Finally, with the best of intentions, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe came to the crux of the matter, because he sees applications to register town and village greens as an additional protection—those were his words—against local authorities. I suggest that that rather gives the game away. He does not trust the local democratic decision-making process, in which there is consultation and the various interests of the environment and development—for example, whether a new school should be provided—are balanced by democratically elected councillors going through the full consultation process. That is the issue that the Committee now has to determine, when coming to a decision on the clause.

Schedule 4 - New Schedule 1A to the Commons Act 2006

Clause 14 - Applications to amend registers: modifcation of power to provide for fees

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about the clause because, at present, it is not entirely clear what it could mean for local people and local communities. The clause seems to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations, which presumably will be debated by the House at some stage, for fees payable in relation to an application and, in particular, make provision for a fee payable to be determined by the person to whom an application is made or, if different, the body by which the application is to be determined.

The explanatory notes state that such measures are to allow for greater flexibility and the targeting of fees. That might indeed be the case, but the LGA says that it is

“helpful that the Bill will enable a fee to be charged locally. This should be levied at a rate that is still feasible for local groups and looks to cover only the costs”.

It again makes the point that matters should be determined at local level. The problem is that the LGC then cites a case when it cost a local authority £32,000 in legal fees to consider one village green application alone. While that might be an exception, it raises several issues to which I want the Minister’s response.

Will the more flexible fee that will be levied include paying the legal costs for the local authority, the Commons Registration Authority or the Planning Inspectorate if the case were referred to them? I ask that, particularly, in relation to the fees being levied against a local community organisation or someone seeking to register the land. If so, is it likely to be a significant deterrent to the registration of village greens even when the claim is considered to be entirely legitimate, and not vexatious in any way?

While the LGA states that the fee

“should be levied at a rate that is still feasible for local groups”,

I can see nothing in the clause that will limit the fee to something that would be considered reasonable. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest what “reasonable” might be in this set of circumstances.

I know that the Government have bandied about a fee of £1,000 or thereabouts for registering a village green. We are entirely unclear as to whether that is the sort of sum they have in mind in these circumstances. Such a sum may seem reasonable to many, but in constituencies such as mine it is quite a large sum for many local groups to find, particularly in a short space of time.

Clearly, having a numerical limit in the Bill is very difficult. Consequently, can the Minister confirm that the regulations, when they are introduced, will contain a limit and some idea of how reasonableness will be determined? Will they allow a claim for the costs of the local authority or the registration authority to be made only where the claim for the registration of land is seen to be vexatious, or will a claim be allowed in more general circumstances?

Furthermore, will the Minister consider what might be done to encourage local communities to use neighbourhood planning to designate green spaces? That is mentioned as a potential benefit in the impact assessment, but how it will be achieved is not clearly spelled out. I heard the comments made earlier by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove, but I am afraid that the experience on the ground is that a number of communities do not have the resources at present to undertake a neighbourhood plan, and I am terribly concerned that clauses 12 to 14 rather suggest, and are based on, what I think is the quite wrong view of the Government that neighbourhood planning is happening in all our communities.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My hon. Friend is spelling things out very clearly. Does she agree that some communities are fortunate to have greater human resource capacity as well as greater financial capacity to connect with local planning, whereas other communities are not that fortunate? There is a key issue about how we equalise the capacity across all communities, which I have not yet seen being addressed.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and indeed it is coming up in the early stages of the evaluation of the neighbourhood planning process that not all communities are equally able to undertake neighbourhood planning. It is actually the most disadvantaged areas of the country that are losing out yet again; those are exactly the areas that need additional resources to help them to undertake neighbourhood planning, but those resources are not forthcoming.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the fees issues and the whole neighbourhood planning issue in his response to the debate.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Perhaps I could set out the purpose of the clause, before turning to the specific and perfectly fair questions that the hon. Lady has asked.

Clause 14 replaces the power in section 24(2)(d) of the Commons Act 2006 to charge fees for applications made under part 1 of the Act to amend the registers of common land or town and village green, with a revised power that applies in England. The power as it applies to Wales is restated, but is unchanged.

This revised power allows the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for fees payable in relation to an application. The aim of the clause is to allow for greater flexibility and targeting of fees for applications to amend the registers under part 1 of the Bill. That would be subject to secondary legislation and therefore, of course, to parliamentary scrutiny.

The powers will ensure that the Government can prescribe in regulations for more than one fee to be charged during the application process, for example at different stages of the application. The clause also makes provision for a fee payable to be determined by the person to whom an application is made or, if it is different, by the body that will determine the application.

This type of situation, whereby the commons registration authority receives an application, but the Planning Inspectorate determines it, presently happens in seven commons registration authority areas that have pioneered the implementation of part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 under the Commons Registration (England) Regulations 2008. At the moment, only the commons registration authority has the power to charge a fee.

In the pioneer areas, an application must be referred to the Planning Inspectorate where

“the registration authority has an interest in the outcome of the application”.

It is not uncommon for town and village green applications to relate to land owned or managed by the commons registration authority itself. However, under the current legislation, the Planning Inspectorate cannot charge a fee to recover any cost for determining the application in those circumstances. The new powers would allow for the commons registration authority to charge for its component of the work, and the Planning Inspectorate could do the same.

The conflict of interest scenario could conceivably apply to any application under part 1. Furthermore, applications must also be referred to the Planning Inspectorate where they would correct a mistake in the register to add land to or remove it from the register, or to correct the details of a right of common in a register. So this is not just about greater flexibility to charge for town and village green applications; it is an issue for any application to amend the registers under part 1 of the 2006 Act.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2011 consultation on town and village green reform proposed setting fees for applications. The clause makes existing fee-making powers more flexible if we decide later that fees are appropriate. However, the Bill does not set fees—that would be done later through regulations. Any fee that is set would need to be fair and to balance recovery of costs by registration authorities against the impact on applicants for registration.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s second point, we have not yet taken a decision as to whether the costs involved should be capped and whether there should be a limit to the fee. I am happy to take into account what she has said on that. Any fee that is set will need to be fair to all sides in the measurement of that particular impact.

The hon. Lady asked whether the legal costs were included in the fees to be set, and, if they were, whether they would be a deterrent to applicants. Nobody wants to discourage proper applications under this process. I will get back to her, if I may, on that point. She also asked whether costs would be recovered only in cases that are vexatious. It is my understanding that that is not the case. Again, if I am wrong, perhaps I could advise her in writing. I beg to move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Conditions of licences under Gas Act 1986: payments to other licence-holders

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

As no amendments have been tabled, I would not want the importance of the clause to go unremarked.

The Gas Act 1986 provides the basis for regulating the British gas market. Clause 16 amends the Gas Act in order to clarify that licences granted by the regulator to gas network companies may contain a requirement for them to increase their charges and transfer the monies raised to other licensed gas companies, including network companies. The law as currently drafted could be interpreted in different ways. This amending clause puts the issue beyond doubt.

The current regulatory uncertainty is preventing Ofgem, the regulator, from launching its gas network innovation competition, as the funding for that competition relies on Ofgem requiring gas network companies to raise and transfer monies to network companies that are successful in the competition.

The gas network innovation competition will see some £160 million invested by gas network companies into the gas infrastructure to improve the efficiency of the grid and to promote innovation. Greater efficiency and innovation in our gas networks will put downward pressure on consumer bills, support our decarbonisation agenda and help the networks adapt to meet challenges in the security of supply. Once the clarification takes effect, Ofgem will be able to put in place the licence conditions required to establish the network innovation competition, following its normal statutory process.

The clause is important, and I hope that the Committee will allow it to stand part of the Bill.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I do not have many comments on the clause. We accept that clauses 15 to 18 are pretty much technical provisions that tidy up existing legislation, which should lead to greater transparency in the future.

Clause 17 - Variation of consents under Electricity Act 1989

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Clause 17 will amend the provisions in the Electricity Act 1989 relating to consents for generating stations and overhead lines. In particular, it will allow developers to apply for amendments to consents for electricity generating stations issued under the Electricity Act regime, which preceded the Planning Act 2008.

When a developer has a consent for a generating station under section 36 of the Electricity Act, it may be several years before it is in a position to commence development. Within that time, technologies may have advanced—for example, turbine efficiency may have improved—and, as a consequence, the developer may wish to make improvements to its project. However, the original consent may not allow such improvements, because it specifies that the development has to be carried out in a certain way. The Electricity Act does not provide for consents issued under section 36 to be varied. Therefore, developers in such a situation would have to make a completely new planning application to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act 2008; build a sub-optimal development; or, in the worst case, simply abandon the development completely.

The Government do not believe that it is right that a developer should have to make a completely new application, covering every aspect of the project in detail, when only part of the project is to be changed. That is unnecessary red-tape. The potential delay and additional expense are in no one’s interest. We believe that the planning system should require a proportionate amount of information from developers in relation to their proposals, and the clause will allow developers to focus on the part of the consent that they want changed.

I assure the Committee that it is not our intention that such changes should simply be rubber-stamped. There will be a public consultation period, and the views of interested parties will still be considered as part of the assessment of the developers’ proposed change. The decision maker, who, depending on the situation, may be the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or the Marine Management Organisation, will then reach a reasoned conclusion.

The clause will insert new section 36C into the Electricity Act 1989. The new section will set out the basic proposition that section 36 consents may in future be varied following an application from a developer and provide that the procedure for dealing with applications to vary section 36 consents may be set out in regulations.

The clause will also allow regulations to make provisions that applications to vary consents and any variation to a consent should be treated as though they were made when the original consent was made. That will enable regulations to tie in the variation of section 36 consents with the current provisions of secondary legislation made under the Planning Act, to clarify that the Planning Act is not required for the revised project. For the same reason, the clause will allow regulations for variations to consents for overhead lines to be treated as though they were made at the same time as the original consent.

Clause 19 - Special parliamentary procedure in cases under the Planning Act 2008

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 19, page 20, line 10, leave out ‘(3)(a)’ and insert ‘(3)’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 80 to 83.

Government new clause 3—Removal of Planning Act 2008 consent and certification requirements.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The group of amendments will expand the one-stop-shop approach to consents for nationally significant infrastructure projects and ensure that the application of special parliamentary procedure applies in the way originally intended.

Clauses 19 and 20 fulfil the Government’s commitment to reform special parliamentary procedure. Clause 19, to which the amendments would be made, limits the use of the special parliamentary procedure, which requires further scrutiny by Parliament of decisions on the compulsory acquisition of special land, where it is not considered that it is necessary, or where there are good reasons for it not to take place.

As part of the Prime Minister’s housing and planning growth announcement on 6 September, the Government set out their intention to expand the one-stop-shop approach for consents for nationally significant infrastructure projects. On 26 November, I published a consultation setting out our proposals for delivering that, while also giving notice to bring forward the new clause and the supporting amendments to the Bill.

Getting the infrastructure that this country needs delivered as quickly and efficiently as possible is absolutely crucial to the Government’s commitment to creating the conditions for sustainable long-term growth. As part of that commitment, we need to ensure that the development consent regime for crucial infrastructure projects works as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Wherever we can, we will remove the bureaucracy and barriers that stand in the way of growth.

The group of amendments removes a number of separate certification and consent processes currently set out in primary legislation. The amendments remove the requirements for additional consents and certificates to be issued set out in sections 127, 131, 132, 137 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. Sections 127, 131, 132 and 138 all relate to certificates or consents required from the Secretary of State. Section 137 is different. It applies to consents issued by statutory undertakers and communications code operators affected by the development consent order in certain circumstances.

The development consent order process offers ample opportunity for these issues currently considered and certified separately to be dealt with effectively. The examining authority and the Secretary of State taking the decision on the development consent order will still have to consider the material issues and will have to set out in the order that he is content that any of the relevant tests set out in legislation—for example, that rights can be purchased without serious detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking—have been met. However, the requirement for an additional certificate or consent—another piece of paper to add to the pile—will no longer be needed, providing a streamlined, more efficient process.

If the Secretary of State is minded to issue a certificate under sections 131 or 132, disapplying the requirement for special parliamentary procedure where an order authorises the acquisition of commons, open space or fuel or field garden allotments, he is required to go through a number of unnecessary procedural requirements. However, it is important to emphasise that the main examination process will still allow interested parties to make representations about these matters, for example, regarding the adequacy of exchange land where common land is acquired. I therefore consider those additional procedures to be duplicative and burdensome.

In addition, in respect of the changes to section 137 of the Planning Act 2008, statutory undertakers and other bodies potentially affected will be able to make representations as part of the examination process. Their representations are already taken into account by the examining authority and the Secretary of State when considering the development consent order. Additional protections offered through this additional bureaucratic process are unnecessary, given the ample opportunity provided for affected bodies to make representations through the development consent order process.

Therefore, I commend amendment 79 and ask for the Committee’s support when we are asked to add the other amendments in this group and new clause 3 to the Bill.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

It is not my intention to speak against the amendments, but the Committee should note that the unnecessary procedural requirements, as the Minister chooses to characterise them, are often there for the protection of important open spaces. I accept, however, that some streamlining is necessary regarding special parliamentary procedure. With the Minister’s assurance that representations from statutory undertakers can still be made during the process, the Opposition can accept the amendments.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I am sure he will accept that we are discussing a particularly difficult and dense set of clauses, and I want to be absolutely certain about the Government’s intentions.

Special parliamentary procedure means that when land of a specific type is compulsorily purchased as a result of a development consent order, the case has to be heard in Parliament. Clause 19 repeals the current provision for certain types of land to be protected by special parliamentary procedure, by allowing the Secretary of State to issue a certificate disapplying such procedure in cases concerning open spaces and land to be compulsorily purchased by a specified body. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that that was necessary due to the “poor drafting” of the Planning Act 2008. Indeed, from what the Minister said earlier, it would appear that poor drafting is part of the reason for bringing amendments forward, but streamlining is perhaps most pressing in the Government’s mind. The United Kingdom Major Ports Group noted in its written evidence:

“It is unlikely that the retention of special parliamentary procedure in the 2008 Act was as a result of ‘poor drafting’. If that were the case the Government has since had ample opportunity to correct such ‘poor drafting’, for example, through the Localism Act 2011. It is far more likely that the draftsman of the 2008 Act recognised, as did the Government of the day, the vital importance of land belonging to statutory undertakers and that such land should not lightly be removed”.

Special parliamentary procedure was brought in to show the value of open land, but that is not to say that the process has no issues. We know the problems faced by the Rookery South project in Bedfordshire, where it took many months for a Committee to be formed for the special parliamentary procedure to get under way. Has the Minister’s Department considered any steps to improve the efficiency of special parliamentary procedure, rather than watering it down? Also on “poor drafting,” can the Minister explain what is meant in proposed new section 131(4B) of the 2008 Act, as set out in clause 19(2), by acquisition

“for a temporary (although possibly long-lived) purpose”?

The meaning of that is not clear to us.

Will the Minister answer the question posed in the evidence from the National Infrastructure Planning Association on why the Bill does not go further? NIPA, in contrast to other organisations, said:

“We feel…the Bill does not go far enough, in that clause 19 should also remove altogether the prospect of the special parliamentary procedure applying in a case involving the acquisition of open space, as distinct from National Trust land, commons and allotments. Open space can be any land that is used as a matter of fact for public recreation. It does not have to be publicly owned, and in my experience, it comes up a lot with linear infrastructure projects.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 116, Q268.]

To what extent does the Minister feel that open space, defined in section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 as

“any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land being a disused burial ground”,

is a useful designation? Perhaps such drafting leads a number of organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to think that the clause, as currently structured, is too complicated and would best be deleted, with the whole process being outlined again elsewhere in a more straightforward manner.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the Bill retains

“safeguards for land with genuinely “special” historic and parliamentary protection”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 602.]

I assume that is why National Trust land, commons and allotments are exempt.

Bearing in mind NIPA’s comments, will the Minister confirm whether his Department has decided that general open space is not genuinely important and that, in reality, it would like to remove all open space protection in favour of other protections such as designation as a local green space? Or does the Minister still believe that open space designation under special parliamentary procedure has some importance? If so, will he explain in what way and in what circumstances the designation is still held to be a valuable tool?

There is concern that removing the special parliamentary procedure for open space will remove an incentive for developers to provide replacement open space. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that that is not the case? The Open Spaces Society has said:

“Ministers must be required to provide good examples of why this change is needed in the public interest.”

I totally agree.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

If you will forgive me, Mr Howarth, I am going to speak at some length, because, as the hon. Lady has pointed out, this is a complicated provision that addresses quite a complicated inherited position. It might assist the Committee, and indeed myself, if I talk through the clause in some detail to ensure that we are no longer as confused as perhaps we, and certainly I, have sometimes been.

Clause 19 amends the provisions in the 2008 Act on the circumstances in which the special parliamentary procedure will apply. The development of world-class infrastructure is vital to the economic vitality of this country and can create thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of new investment, so consents for infrastructure need to be provided quickly and efficiently.

The 2008 Act brought together a range of consent regimes for major infrastructure into a single development consent order that includes any decisions on the compulsory acquisition of land. But where certain categories of specially protected land are acquired, special parliamentary procedures may be triggered.

Under the special parliamentary procedure, the decision on whether such land may be compulsorily acquired under an infrastructure consent is transferred to a Committee of MPs and peers for further examination. While the SPP process is undertaken, the development consent cannot come into effect and work on the infrastructure project cannot start. The Government believe there is a strong argument for the special parliamentary procedure to be limited to situations where there is a real need for further scrutiny by Parliament: for example, where there is a genuine need to weigh up the public interests of allowing infrastructure development to take place at the expense of the loss of certain types of very specially protected land. However, in the one case so far where the special parliamentary procedure has been triggered for an infrastructure project under the Planning Act, the project had already been delayed by over a year since the initial consent was issued. We do not consider such delays to be acceptable given the importance of new infrastructure to growth.

Clause 19 therefore seeks to limit the circumstances in which the special parliamentary process would apply to infrastructure projects under the Planning Act. First, it repeals sections 128 and 129 of the Planning Act. That would remove the requirement for the SPP in cases where land belonging to a local authority, or acquired by a statutory undertaker for purposes of their undertaking, is compulsorily acquired, and a representation made against the acquisition by the local authority or undertaker is not withdrawn. That would bring the Planning Act in line with similar consenting legislation for infrastructure such as the Transport and Works Act 1992.

I should stress that that does not mean that land of that type will be compulsorily acquired without any opportunity for local authorities or statutory undertakers to present a case against acquisition. First, anyone can make representations regarding the proposed acquisition of land. Furthermore, existing provisions for hearings on the acquisition as part of the public examination of the infrastructure project are unchanged. Those with an interest in the land being acquired will still be able to require that a hearing is held and make representations regarding the acquisition, which will be taken into account in the recommendations made to the Secretary of State and in his subsequent decision. The requirement under section 122 of the Planning Act for a compelling public interest for the land to be compulsorily acquired will remain unchanged.

Clause 19 inserts new subsections into sections 131 and 132 of the Planning Act. Section 131 sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can issue a certificate so that, in a particular case, the compulsory acquisition of commons, open spaces and what are known as “fuel and field garden allotments” do not trigger the special parliamentary procedure. Currently, such certificates can be issued in very limited circumstances. Section 132 covers the issuing of certificates where the compulsory acquisition is of rights over commons, open space and allotments.

Two new circumstances in which the Secretary of State may issue such certificates are proposed in new subsections (4A) and (4B) to section 131 of the Planning Act. These relate only to open space. New subsection (4A) allows the Secretary of State to issue a certificate where open space is compulsorily acquired and suitable exchange land for the land being acquired is not available, or only available at prohibitive cost. In such cases, a certificate could be issued if it is strongly—I emphasise strongly—in the public interest for the development to start sooner than would be the case if it were subject to the special parliamentary procedure.

New subsection (4B) allows the Secretary of State to issue a certificate where open space is compulsorily acquired for a temporary, although possibly long-lived, purpose. The hon. Member for City of Durham made a reference to this slightly curious concept, and I accept that there may appear to by oxymoron, but I think she will understand that “temporary” means that it is not for ever. There is a limit to the time, but it is not necessarily just a matter of months; the time could be reasonably extended, although it will not be permanent. That is what we are trying to clarify, but I understand that she may not be entirely satisfied by that explanation. As such purposes could vary considerably depending on the project concerned, we have not attempted to specify a time period for any temporary need of open space.

Two new sub-sections are also added to section 132 of the Planning Act, which covers compulsory acquisition of rights over special land. These subsections replicate those added to section 131. New subsection (4A) allows the Secretary of State to issue a certificate where no suitable land is available to be given in exchange for the acquisition of a right over open space, or is available only at prohibitive cost. Again, this would be subject to a test that it must be strongly in the public interest for the certificate to be issued. Subsection (4B) allows a certificate to be granted where a right over open space land is to be acquired only on a temporary basis.

I stress again that we are not removing all opportunity for people to make representations on the compulsory acquisition of special land. Such representations will continue to be considered as part of the examination of an infrastructure project and in Ministers’ decisions on consents. The proposals set out in clause 19 will ensure that essential infrastructure projects are not delayed unnecessarily by the need for special parliamentary procedure. Our proposals strike a fair balance between the need for protection of certain types of land and the need for new infrastructure to support growth.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Will the Minister give way?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I will try to deal with some of the questions that the hon. Lady has raised, but I am happy to give way to her if she wants to pose further questions.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The Minister’s comments are very helpful in helping us to understand why this clause has been included in the Bill. Could he also help the Committee by informing us of the way in which the phrase, “strongly in the public interest”, will be assessed and whether that has already been set out in the legislation or whether the Government intend to do so in the future?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. May I return to it in a moment? I would just like to deal with a couple of the questions that she raised previously. She made the point that the Secretary of State had referred to poor drafting as one of the motives for these clauses. He was referring to some inconsistencies between different legislation relating to the special parliamentary procedure. That is what we are dealing with through clause 20. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that poor drafting is the only reason. The hon. Lady herself referred to streamlining. We are building on the streamlining that took place in the Planning Act 2008 to create the single development consent order. We are trying to give that more effect and tidy up some of its interactions with the special parliamentary procedure.

The hon. Lady referred to comments by the National Infrastructure Planning Association on open space. We recognise the issues that it raises and its desire for these changes to go further. However, we believe that the clause, although complex, strikes the right balance and ensures that the special parliamentary procedure will work properly in the future. It is important that we have the SPP, as it provides an important level of protection for the most precious spaces, which is why we are retaining it with regard to certain kinds of land. We believe that this measure will simplify matters. Even if the clause is not simple, the hope is that the procedures that Government and infrastructure projects will have to go through will be simpler as a result.

The hon. Lady asked about the assessment of the phrase, “strongly in the national interest”. As is always the case when making planning decisions, the Secretary of State is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. There is a whole history of precedent and case law, often tested in court by judicial review, establishing whether one has made the case that something is strongly in the public interest or not. It is better to leave some discretion as to how that is determined, knowing that it can always be challenged through judicial review, through the courts, if it is inconsistent with previous decisions. I think that that is probably a better way and a slightly more—dare I say it?—English way of proceeding than necessarily setting out the detailed criteria. One always finds that those criteria miss something, so practice is the best guide, but of course that is open to challenge.

I hope that those explanations have reassured the hon. Lady on some points. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 20 - Modifications of special parliamentary procedure in certain cases

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 20, page 22, line 3, at end insert—

‘(c) paragraph 22 of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964 (harbour revision or empowerment order authorising compulsory purchase of, or of rights over, inalienable National Trust land or land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment),

(d) paragraph 12 or 13 of Schedule 4 to the New Towns Act 1981 (order authorising compulsory purchase of local authority land, inalienable National Trust land or land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment), or

(e) section 12 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (order authorising compulsory purchase of, or of rights over, inalienable National Trust land or land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment).

(4) A reference in this Act to land to which a special-acquisition provision applies is to be read as follows—

(a) “land” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the special-acquisition provision, and

(b) in the case of a special-acquisition provision mentioned in subsection (3)(c) or (e), the reference is to—

(i) land (as so defined) belonging to the National Trust which is held by the Trust inalienably, or

(ii) land (as so defined) forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment.

(5) The definition of “the National Trust” given by section 7(1) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, and section 18(3) of that Act (meaning of “held inalienably”), apply for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(i).

(6) In subsection (4)(b)(ii) “common”, “fuel or field garden allotment” and “open space” have the same meaning as in section 19 of that Act.”’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 85 and 86.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

These minor amendments ensure that we catch relevant Acts of Parliament under which the special parliamentary procedure can apply. That is particularly in response to some of the poor drafting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned on Second Reading.

Clause 20 ensures that where special parliamentary procedure is triggered for certain types of land under the Planning Act 2008 or the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, consideration under special parliamentary procedure will be limited to the compulsory acquisition of special land.

The three minor amendments in the group extend that principle to other Acts where it is clear that the original intention was to limit the scope of special parliamentary procedure in that way. I therefore hope that the Committee will support the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I do not want to detain the Committee long on the clause, although, at four pages, it is rather long. As we know, it is about limiting the provisions that will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and in what circumstances, and I have quite a straightforward question for the Minister. The clause is very dense, and the Government have paid a lot of attention to reducing the number of cases in which special parliamentary procedure will apply. However, they have not paid attention to shortening the process, and in reducing the number of cases that can be dealt with under it, they have done nothing to guarantee that it is speeded up a bit. That is a bit extraordinary, because in the one case we all know of, it has taken an incredibly long time to get the Committee up and running and doing its job properly.

Given that the Bill is supposed to be a growth Bill, and is being presented as the Government’s flagship growth Bill, it is a little odd to give four pages of the Bill to a set of circumstances that do not apply to many cases, and not to consider speed as important. The Government are saying that we need growth now and that we need quickly to remove some of the impediments to it, so why not address the issue of speed in the clause?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Yet again, if you will allow me, Mr Howarth, I will speak at a little length, because the clause is complicated. Towards the end of my remarks I will answer the hon. Lady’s reasonable question.

Clause 20 amends the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, which prescribes the operation of special parliamentary procedure. It ensures that where a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 triggers special parliamentary procedure, the consideration of the order will be limited to the order only in so far as it authorises compulsory acquisition of special land.

It also applies similar changes for other orders involving the compulsory acquisition of specially protected land made under sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. That will ensure consistency in the operation of the special parliamentary procedure.

The need for clause 20 reflects an inconsistency between the 2008 Act and the 1945 Act and, similarly, between the 1981 Act and the 1945 Act. That was drawn to the Government’s attention by the Chairmen in their initial report on the Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order 2011, which is currently subject to special parliamentary procedure.

The intention of Parliament in the 2008 Act was that the special parliamentary procedure should be restricted to just the element of the consent order authorising the compulsory acquisition of special land. However, the 1945 Act does not currently make provision for Parliament to consider just part of an order. That undermines the intention of the 2008 Act and means that decisions on matters such as planning permission that have properly been decided by a Minister in accordance with that Act are open for reconsideration by Parliament.

Clause 20 seeks to resolve the inconsistency and the problem that it causes. It amends the 1945 Act so that it also makes provision for circumstances where special parliamentary procedure should apply only to a limited extent; for example, as was intended in the Planning Act 2008.

It may be helpful if I give a brief summary of how the limitation would work in practice. The limitation is achieved by identifying provisions in the Planning Act 2008 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 that trigger special parliamentary procedure as special acquisition provisions. A new section 1A in the 1945 Act then provides that, where an order is subject to special parliamentary procedure under a special acquisition provision, the part of the order that authorises the compulsory acquisition of special land is known as a special authorisation.

Subsections 3 to 18 of the new section 1A set out modifications to the 1945 Act making the relevant changes. Many of them provide that references in the 1945 Act to the order are read as references to the special authorisation. The overall effect is that the consideration under special parliamentary procedure is limited to the compulsory acquisition of special land; for example, under the new section 1A, section 3 of the 1945 Act, which makes provision for the examination of petitions against an order, must be read so that petitions against an order are to be construed as petitions against a special authorisation. The effect of that is that petitions can be certified as proper to be received only if they are petitions against the elements of an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of special land. Under the modified provisions the Chairmen may certify either that a petition is one of amendment to a special authorisation or, if it is against the special authorisation generally, that it is a petition of general objection.

Once the Chairmen have reported on petitions against a special authorisation, there remains a 21-day period during which either House can resolve to annul a special authorisation. If that happens, the whole development consent order or compulsory purchase order to which the special authorisation relates will have to be withdrawn or submitted to Parliament as a Bill for confirmation of the order. If neither House resolves to annul the special authorisation, any petitions against it that have been certified as proper to be received will be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If there are no such petitions then special authorisation will come into operation.

Where petitions have been certified as proper to be received and are considered by the Joint Committee, it may report the special authorisation with or without amendment; or, if a petition of general objection is received, it may report that the special authorisation should not be approved.

Where a special authorisation is reported by the Joint Committee without amendments, the relevant order will come into operation. Where, on the other hand, a special authorisation is reported by the Joint Committee with amendments, the Minister may elect to bring the order into force as amended or, if that is inexpedient, he or she may either withdraw the order or submit it to Parliament for further consideration by means of a Bill.

Finally, if the Joint Committee reports that a special authorisation should not be approved, the order to which that special authorisation relates will not take effect unless confirmed by an Act of Parliament. The clause is necessarily complicated, but it achieves the desired aim and will ensure that special parliamentary procedure in any future cases is limited to the consideration of the compulsory acquisition of special land.

The hon. Member for City of Durham asked about the speed of the procedure. Although I accept that the clause is immensely complicated—indeed, I am slightly surprised that the hon. Lady did not accuse us of trying to create employment in the parliamentary drafting office—it will help to speed up the special parliamentary procedure because it reduces the number of circumstances in which it can apply, and it will ensure that in future the procedure will be able to consider the compulsory acquisition of only special land and not other parts of the project, thereby limiting the range of issues that can be opened up.

The hon. Lady specifically asked why it took four pages to introduce the provision. Unfortunately, because of having to clean up so many other Acts, that was the only way we could make the SPP fit for future operation. One of the few things I have learnt in this process is that once we start having to change things in preceding Acts, the drafting becomes a lot more complicated.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am not sure that I was querying the fact that the provision took four pages. Clearly, it is taking four pages to put right whatever it is that the Government think needs to be put right. I was querying the priority given to the measure, in relation to promoting economic growth.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches would pretend that this was the clause that was most likely to have a transformative impact on the country’s economic prospects. We are absolutely certain that that is the case with other clauses. However, in relation to the people who have a particular interest in the infrastructure projects and the economic regions around them, the clause will have a crucially important effect in ensuring that such projects can go ahead. It is worth, therefore, the time that has been taken to draft and consider it.

Clause 21 - Bringing business and commercial projects within Planning Act 2008 regime

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 21, page 25, line 23, after ‘may’, insert

‘subject to regulations excluding sites of special environmental or historic importance,’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 103, in clause 21, page 25, line 33, at end insert—

‘(aa) the development does not involve surface mineral extraction or quarrying.’.

Amendment 109, in clause 21, page 25, leave out line 33.

Amendment 110, in clause 21, page 25, leave out line 43.

Amendment 111, in clause 21, page 26, line 10, leave out from ‘project)’ to end of line 11.

Amendment 112, in clause 21, page 26, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

‘(5) In this section, “business or commercial project” means a project which consists of any of the following—

(a) offices and research and development facilities;

(b) manufacturing and processing proposals;

(c) warehousing, storage and distribution facilities;

(d) conference and exhibition centres;

(e) leisure, tourism and sports and recreation facilities;

(f) extractive industries (mining and quarrying); and

(g) mixed-use developments, including one or more of the above uses but not retail where it is the main or predominant use or housing except where it is incidental.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order, subject to consultation—

(a) amend subsection (5) to add a new type of project or vary or remove an existing type of project;

(b) make further provision, or amend or repeal existing provision, about the types of project which are, and are not, within subsection (5).

(7) An order under subsection (6)(b) may amend this Act.’.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Clause 21 seeks to bring new types of project into the major infrastructure regime established by the Planning Act 2008. Although I am pleased that the Minister recognises that the Act, introduced by the previous Labour Government, is working well, I have to say that that is unusual for him.

A number of points in the clause diverge significantly from the aims and processes established by the 2008 system. The first is the inclusion of business and commercial projects alongside the existing and more narrowly defined categories such as energy and ports, without national policy statements underpinning them. We were pleased to see the publication of the consultation document last week, which, as I have said, was done somewhat sooner than other consultations relating to the Bill. It is none the less worrying that a clause that will lead to such an enormous change in planning policy has been included in the Bill before any consultation has been done on it, including on whether the clause is necessary. There is a significant amount of concern about what will be captured under business and commercial, and whether sending such projects directly to the Secretary of State where the applicant chooses will speed up decision making.

The amendments look in different ways at the scope of business and commercial and at whether the term will be efficient in identifying nationally significant projects and promoting growth. We will return later to the issue of whether the measures in the Bill will promote growth.

Amendment 101 would ensure that environmental and historic protections remain in place and that the major planning regime does not become a tool to bypass proper protections. The amendment would do that by including a reference to

“regulations excluding sites of special environmental or historic importance”

in proposed new section 35(1). The areas to which that exclusion would apply would be few. However, there are areas where unconstrained development not only would be bad for the environment and residents, but could be detrimental to the economy. A seaside town that is largely dependent on tourism for its income may, for example, be better off without a giant warehouse on the outskirts of town.

I am sure the Minister can appreciate the need for some protections for particular areas, given the extent to which he intends to increase the scope of the major infrastructure regime. Protection is particularly necessary when no national strategy is being offered to help guide where major developments should take place and how they will fit in with other projects. Later in the Committee’s deliberations, I will return in more detail to a specific amendment on the need to underpin clause 21 with national policy statements.

Amendment 103 is more specific about the types of application we seek to exclude by adding that business and commercial projects should not include quarrying or surface mineral extraction, such as open-cast mining. Evidence submitted by the Loose Anti Opencast Mining Network shows that on the basis of current applications, the 100-hectare threshold set out in the consultation document would capture a third of open-cast mining applications currently in the public domain or under consideration. That is a huge proportion to be taken out of the control of the local authority and local people.

There is also a risk that applications close to the threshold would upsize in order to bypass local consultation. For example, the Ferneybeds application near Ashington is for an open-cast mine of 95.6 hectares. The developer might consider increasing the size of the site so as to avoid the local authority’s scrutiny of the application, which would enable a lot of the resistance in local communities to open-cast mining to be taken into account. That is worrying, because as the Loose Anti Opencast Mining Network states:

“The larger the site, the more sensitive is the issue of the impact that the site will have on the local communities and the more people it will affect.”

The issue is especially pertinent, given, as we will discuss in more detail later, the loss of primacy for the local plan under the system and the Minister’s refusal to consider national policy statements. That entirely undermines democratic accountability in the system, and drowns the voice of the affected community. It is therefore important that we exclude the practices that are likely to cause the most anger and distrust in the system and guarantee that applications will be decided by democratically elected people who understand local concerns.

The point was supported by Dr Ellis of the Town and Country Planning Association, who not only talked about democratic accountability but argued that the system works well as it is. In his evidence to the Committee, he said:

“Speaking as someone who has done a bit of minerals planning, there is no problem, for example, with the minerals planning regime in England. It is an effective regime. It does not need to be drawn out of town and country planning, but it is a controversial regime in some areas. Given its controversy, it works remarkably well. Whether that is the intention or not, I worry whether a message is being sent that drawing to the centre critical decisions is somehow a way of dealing with the long-standing problem on the ground. For me, it would be about a different, perhaps positive, attempt to rebuild that relationship with communities.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2012; c. 104, Q247.]

In 2011, I took part in a debate on the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), which sought to introduce a buffer zone of 500 metres between any open-cast mining site and residential dwellings. Few members of the Committee attended that particular debate, but I am sure that many Members on both sides would support the aims of the Bill, which, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, sought to

“offer protection to communities not only in North West Leicestershire but in dozens of constituencies in former coalfields throughout the country.”

Debates on private Members’ Bills are not always the best attended parliamentary occasions, but what was interesting about that debate was that most of the people who were there to present and support that Bill were Conservative Members of Parliament who were desperately concerned about the impact of open-cast mining, or the potential of open-cast mining, on their communities. I urge the Minister to read the Hansard coverage of the Bill’s deliberations because there were lots of different examples of the way in which open-cast mining had seriously impacted on local residents not only as a result of the dust and noise but because of the hours of work which saw local communities disturbed very early in the morning and sometimes late at night if some of the quarry was being moved for a special order.

If the Minister is going to criticise us for raising this as a real concern, he must take on board the views of a number of Government Members, because they supported that private Member’s Bill. There were also a number of Members who supported it because of the concerns in relation to their constituencies. We are very concerned that if a request for an open-cast mine or quarry site can bypass the local community for determination, issues such as the proximity of the site to local residents or what particular residents feel about that application may not be taken into consideration sufficiently. I am sure that the Minister will say that, under the process, there will be public hearings and attention given to the local community, but the drive of the clause is in the wrong direction or, in relation to mining or quarrying, it is a step too far.

Like other hon. Members, I have seen applications for open-cast mining, because I represent an ex-mining community. They are not all successfully resisted and, at times, with proper safeguards in place, it is possible to persuade a local community that the economic benefit of open-cast mining overrides the environmental impact. However, that happens only in circumstances where the community can strongly argue its case with the developer, often with the local authority being onboard and supporting the residents, and with elected representatives being very familiar with the area affected by open-cast mining or quarrying.

I am concerned that the clause will compound the problem of communities feeling disempowered by attempts to change legislation and deny them a say in whether they should have open-cast mines in their back gardens. That is not ridiculous; it is not hyperbole. Some open-cast mines and sites impinge hugely on local residents. The clause is not right, and mining and quarrying should not be included in consultation documents. The very intrusive nature of such developments and how they can impact so negatively on local communities means that this is not the correct way forward. Will the Minister consider whether it is essential for increasing growth to have projects that, if they are not considered carefully, can damage the environment as much as open-cast mining and quarrying?

I hope that the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove will support the amendment. In his previous ministerial capacity, he responded to our debates on the private Member’s Bill. He did not give it Government backing, but he said:

“Although most people see my constituency as a leafy suburban area adjacent to a national park, it has the same coal beneath it as is under the constituencies of the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), so I fully understand the high level of public concern about these applications. The concerns about the environmental protection lost as a result of the intrusion of these developments and about the dust are often well justified.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 648 and 661.]

The Committee should note that and take it on board in our discussions. Our concerns are justified, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove and his hon. Friend the Minister will support the amendment to ensure that local people have a say over applications relating to mining and quarrying.

Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would remove references to business and commercial projects of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State. From the consultation documents, we know that that prescription will presumably fall in line with what eventually emerges as the list of types of projects to be included.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 103, in clause 21, page 25, line 33, at end insert—

‘(aa) the development does not involve surface mineral extraction or quarrying.’.

Amendment 109, in clause 21, page 25, leave out line 33.

Amendment 110, in clause 21, page 25, leave out line 43.

Amendment 111, in clause 21, page 26, line 10, leave out from ‘project)’ to end of line 11.

Amendment 112, in clause 21, page 26, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—

‘(5) In this section, “business or commercial project” means a project which consists of any of the following—

(a) offices and research and development facilities;

(b) manufacturing and processing proposals;

(c) warehousing, storage and distribution facilities;

(d) conference and exhibition centres;

(e) leisure, tourism and sports and recreation facilities;

(f) extractive industries (mining and quarrying); and

(g) mixed-use developments, including one or more of the above uses but not retail where it is the main or predominant use or housing except where it is incidental.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order, subject to consultation—

(a) amend subsection (5) to add a new type of project or vary or remove an existing type of project;

(b) make further provision, or amend or repeal existing provision, about the types of project which are, and are not, within subsection (5).

(7) An order under subsection (6)(b) may amend this Act.’.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

As I was saying, the three amendments would remove references in the Bill to business and commercial projects of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State. The intention is to allow the definition of such projects to be included in the Bill under amendment 112.

Amendment 112 is a probing amendment, which would put things to be included within business and commercial projects in the Bill, by using categories set out in the Government’s impact assessment and consultation document, but the size thresholds in the impact assessment and consultation have not been included in the amendment.

The reason why I say that amendment 112 is probing is that we wish not to include more schemes into the definition, but to require a clear and stringent definition from the Government of “nationally significant”, which is currently entirely lacking from the Bill, to remove the risk of conflating national significance with size rather than economic contribution.

The fact that the size thresholds have not been properly considered is borne out by the fact that the numbers in the impact assessment are hugely different from the ones in the consultation. The former states that applications for offices larger than 10,000 square metres should be considered, but the latter says that that figure should be 40,000 square metres. Will the Minister enlighten us as to what led to the change of heart and the huge change in definition?

The National Infrastructure Planning Association said in its evidence that

“it is important to leave a degree of flexibility so that when developers approach Government and say, ‘We have this particular scheme,’ it is caught by the prescribing regulations. The Government can then say, ‘We consider it to be of national significance. Would you please designate it so we can go down the Planning Act route?’ The way in which the designation process works needs more attention in terms of how the Bill is drafted.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 108, Q252.]

What NIPA was outlining in that quote was that the circumstances were all a bit too vague. It is not clear at the moment exactly what will be covered, what the prescription of the Secretary of State to make a definition will be in practice and how the definition might be changed from time to time.

Clearly, the Bill should not define significance through size alone. I think that the Minister would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought that a leisure centre, even if it was over 100 hectares, would be nationally significant. Similarly, a conference hall of 40,000 square metres might be significant locally, but is it likely to be nationally significant?

As the Minister intends to introduce a whole raft of new planning applications into the major infrastructure regime, he needs to be clear about what nationally significant means, rather than rely on size thresholds that appear to have been plucked from thin air, especially as, as I have made clear, what is in the consultation document differs so widely from what is in the impact assessment.

The problem is in line with the evidence given to the Committee. No one was able to pick a specific size. Instead, the witnesses spoke of characteristics of specific developments. For instance, Liz Peace from the British Property Federation said:

“I do not have a particular view in numerical terms, but, as an example, a development of the scale of something like King’s Cross would have been a sensible one to take through a major infrastructure projects regime.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 42, Q6.]

Along with a number of people who gave evidence to the Committee, we think that the Government are taking entirely the wrong approach.

We should be clear about what “nationally significant” means, and we should use that definition to do the majority of work in determining which applications come under this regime. That would be much easier if the Minister would commit to writing national policy statements for the types of development to be included. At the very least, a definition of “national significance” could take into account certain projects.

I hope that Ministers are taking this matter on board, because it would help people to make sense of where the Government are trying to go with the clause. For example, the number of jobs expected to result from a development could be considered, as could the value of the project and its expected impact on the local and national economy. Furthermore, a clear definition of “national significance” would have huge benefits for encouraging certainty in and investment by developers.

Surely, if the Minister is, as he says, committed to using the Bill to foster growth, the focus should be on speeding up and offering certainty to all nationally significant projects, rather than to those that happen to be above a certain size. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister in his response whether the Government have any projects in mind for inclusion under the clause and, indeed, whether they have thought of any potentially nationally significant projects that would not be covered by the clause and its extension of the Planning Act 2008 route to more projects.

Finally, amendment 112 also covers another omission from the clause, which is the exemption of any project containing housing. That is entirely nonsensical and shows a lack of understanding of the nature of such developments. That was illustrated in the oral evidence given by Liz Peace of the British Property Federation, who said:

“There is also one particular, rather strange bit in the clause, which explicitly excludes projects that include ‘the construction of one or more dwellings.’”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 42, Q6.]

Similarly, Robbie Owen of the National Infrastructure Planning Association said:

“I entirely support the point that there is the rather odd exclusion of dwelling houses, as the Bill makes clear, which would rule out any mixed-use schemes from the scope of the Bill. We do not understand the logic of that.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 108, Q252.]

Labour Members are by no means advocating that housing development should be included in this regime, but we suggest that the Minister should at least allow for incidental housing—for example, a house for a caretaker or a security guard, or a similar type of home—that might need to be included on the site just to make it function properly. Failure to do that effectively renders the clause useless, as there are very few schemes of the size and nature that the Minister proposes that do not come with at least one house.

I would be interested in hearing from the Minister. As I have said, amendment 112 is largely a probing amendment, by which we seek to achieve better understanding of what is meant by “national significance” and to ask whether it is wise, given the nature of the developments that might be included, not to include developments that have at least one house.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

As this is our first opportunity to debate clause 21, it might be to the Committee’s benefit if I set out briefly the aims of the clause, before discussing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham.

The purpose of the clause is to extend the existing powers under the Planning Act 2008 that enable the Secretary of State to direct certain forms of infrastructure schemes into the Planning Act regime to new forms of business and commercial development. Our intention is not to bring new developments into the regime automatically, but to provide an alternative planning route for applicants where proposed development is of national significance. That is important, because a thread that runs through many clauses is that we are trying to create opportunities, so that applicants and developers have an alternative route when they encounter obstacles, delay or unreasonable behaviour.

The hon. Lady asks whether we can be certain that this route will be faster than the alternative, and the answer is no, but the point is that a local authority will often be the fastest route. The ability to have a pre-application consultation will be valuable to the applicant. The last thing that we want is to force anyone down this route, but it will be more predictable because it will be timetabled. Individual applicants and promoters of infrastructure schemes will be able to make a choice between taking an application through the existing local route or this new national route.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The Minister stresses the fact that the new route will be more reliable because it will be timetabled. To my knowledge, two schemes have been approved under the existing 2008 Act procedures, and they have taken 14 and 16 months respectively, rather than the 12 months that is the Government’s stated objective. Is he confident that the proposed scheme extension will have a different outcome?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I have already shared with the right hon. Gentleman the power of embarrassment on Planning Inspectorate performance, but he makes a serious point. The figures that he outlines show that a scheme’s promoter would have to be seriously concerned about the prospects of the scheme being handled properly through the local authority route to want to go down the Planning Inspectorate route. We are making arrangements with the Planning Inspectorate—I have had discussions with its staff in Bristol—about how they will be able to deal with such applications, which we expect to be few. We are talking only a few handfuls, not hundreds and hundreds.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The Minister says that he expects only a small number of such applications—we have heard that before—but his Department’s press statement of 6 September states:

“Thousands of big commercial and residential applications to be directed to a major infrastructure fast track”.

When did the policy change?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I was not aware of that press statement, which certainly does not reflect the policy either as it was conceived or as it was announced in the House, so that picture is perhaps not entirely accurate. Press statements can sometimes be a little giddy in their excitement about a measure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it has always been clear that there will be a relatively small number of applications only.

With the explanation that the new route is an opportunity and not a route that must be taken, I turn to the first amendment in the group tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham. Amendment 101 seeks to exclude from the regime projects in sites of special environmental or historic importance. The difficulty is that it seems to imply that there is inadequate protection within the national planning policy framework for such considerations. The whole point of that framework, which will be the policy basis for the decisions on such applications, is that it makes it clear that pursuing

“sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to)…widening the choice of high quality homes.”

There are plenty of places in policy, which will be the basis for decisions, to take those factors into account. It is important to remember that a scheme’s going down that route does not mean that it is any more likely to be given consent. If it falls foul of one of the many considerations in national planning policy, it will probably not get consent, unless other overwhelming material considerations deriving from that national policy are relevant. To exclude schemes on the basis of something that is already a consideration of national policy seems unnecessary and slightly to miss the point.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The Minister has been helpful in spelling things out. As I listen, I become more convinced that all the alternatives being provided may end up in greater confusion and dither, opposite to the intention.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The truth is that the hon. Gentleman is a gloomy fellow for whom the glass is often half empty, whereas we on the Government Benches always believe that more choice and alternatives are better. We are trying to offer businesses and promoters of infrastructure schemes alternative ways to achieve goals that are important for the whole country. Again, as was true of many other clauses, nothing would be better for all of us than if no promoter of an infrastructure scheme decided that this route was attractive, because they were getting such a fantastic service from a local authority. If that were the case for every significant national infrastructure scheme, I would be delighted, but it is right to create the opportunity, because that may not always be so.

The hon. Member for City of Durham passionately discussed amendment 103 on minerals and quarries. She obviously has a great deal of personal and constituency experience and familiarity with the subject. There appeared initially to be a slight conflict with amendment 112, which specifically mentions extraction industries, but she explained that that was a probing amendment. Therefore I assume that amendment 103 represents her true view of minerals and quarries.

I should like to be clear in saying that we have published a consultation document on exactly which sorts of schemes should fall under the clause. The reason for doing the consultation is to take into account different views about the types of project that might be included. It is important for the country that we have a good, steady supply of vital minerals. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that:

“Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life. It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation.”

The NPPF recognises the effect of such developments on people who live nearby. If minerals are to be included—we are open on this issue and are consulting genuinely on it—the Secretary of State, acting in his or her capacity as decision maker, will take into account all the hon. Lady’s concerns and will have a process of consultation with local people, meaning that people will be able to make their representations. The local authority, as in the provision for existing major projects, will be required to produce a local impact report that can take into account all sorts of local concerns, such as the ones that the hon. Lady outlined.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I find the Minister’s comments helpful, but does he agree with the Town and Country Planning Association, which says that there is no evidence to show that we are running short of minerals or that it is not possible to quarry minerals? The lack of evidence about that is also upsetting people.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Again, that is probably based on a mistaken premise, which is that, as soon as a project has entered this route, all local feeling will be overridden and the chances of its being turned down suddenly become vanishingly small. That is simply not the case. The decision maker—the Secretary of State—will have to take into account all the national policy on sustainability, environmental concerns, the effect on neighbours, noise and all the other things that are proper planning considerations. There is no reason to believe that it is more likely to gain approval through that route than under a local authority route.

We are genuinely consulting on such matters. We have heard and understood that there is a level of concern about the particular sub-category that is perhaps more acute than the concern about the other sub-categories. We shall not be deaf to that, but we are going through a consultation, and I do not want to pre-judge the balance of responses to it or our final decisions on it.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I welcome the Minister’s clear commitment to take the concerns forward, such as those in the memorandum submitted by the Loose Anti-Opencast Network. It is thorough in expressing its worries about the measure. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has made such a statement is helpful and positive.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising and understanding clearly what I was saying.

I have also underlined why it would be a mistake to follow what is set out in amendments 109 to 112, which would be to define the types of scheme under the Bill. The fact is that, until we have been through the consultation, we will not know where public sensitivities lie—where people understand and agree that it is appropriate to consider something nationally significant.

The hon. Lady put forward an elegant case about how size thresholds themselves will probably not be consistent indicators. That is why, while we should publish a set of criteria that will be used by the Secretary of State, even once those criteria have been finally adopted, the Secretary of State will still have discretion to say, “Yes, okay, this ticks those seven boxes, but even so, I don’t consider this to be nationally significant.” It is important that there is a qualitative judgment, and not simply a tick-box exercise, in establishing what are nationally significant schemes. That is why we shall resist the hon. Lady’s amendments suggesting that we should write such criteria into the Bill. We want to keep them as subsidiary matters that can therefore be changed slightly more easily than might be the case, not least because there might be an evolving view of what is nationally significant.

A project might pop up that is not captured by the criteria as originally adopted, and which demonstrates that clearly they should be adjusted. I am saying to the hon. Lady that, under the Act put in place by the Government who she supported, which defined which applications the Mayor of London can call in for his or—some day, I hope—her decision, there is no definition on the face of the Act. The definition is in secondary legislation because we need to retain some flexibility. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am reasonably happy with the Minister’s comments. It is certainly a step forward for our amendments to be taken seriously.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

To underline how seriously I am taking the hon. Lady’s amendments, I want to make sure that I do not leave a certain matter unaddressed. She referred to ancillary housing. It may be apparent to members of the Committee that few people are keener on further house building than I, to the extent that, at times, I have come under some attack for taking such a position. Nevertheless, I am very clear, as are the Government, that the right way for housing to be determined is through a local plan with the decision maker being, in the first instance, the local authority. It is important not to move away from that principle; otherwise, what on earth is the point of requiring local authorities to go through the local planning process in the first place? [ Interruption. ] Oh, it is not a speech? I do apologise, Mr Chairman. I think I have made the point.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Order. I am grateful that the Minister was so sensitive to my body language, but the strictures that apply to the Opposition spokesman apply equally to Ministers.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Thank you, Mr Howarth. Actually, I was very much enjoying the Minister’s comments, but obviously we cannot go against the Chair’s order.

I was pleased that the Minister said that the Government will take note of the consultation that relates to the clause and the amendments; and that he will perhaps come back, once the consultation process has finished, with a clearer set of criteria; and that he will listen to the comments that have been made by several organisations, particularly around mining and quarrying, because there is a lot of concern out there. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 21, page 25, line 26, at end insert—

‘(1B) The Secretary of State must publish his reasons for giving a direction under this subsection.’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 104, in clause 21, page 25, line 36, leave out ‘thinks’ and insert

‘considers that, subject to published criteria,’.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

However, having said that, and being reasonably happy with what the Minister has said so far on the amendments in the previous debate, the Opposition would like more information about what is going to underpin the Secretary of State’s decision on whether an application is nationally significant.

Amendment 102 puts a requirement upon the Secretary of State to publish his reasons for determining that a development is to be treated as a development for which development consent is required. It does so by adding the requirement to publish reasons at the end of the first paragraph of new section 35. We would not think that was a particularly onerous requirement unless the Secretary of State is indeed going to decide the matter on a whim and he does not wish that whim to be in the public domain. Otherwise he will have gone through a thought process, considered different criteria and what might be nationally significant, and will therefore be able to tell us and to publish the reasons as to why he has decided something is nationally significant. So, the amendment would require him to set out exactly why a development was deemed to be in the national interest. Without the amendment, local communities might struggle to see why their elected representatives are to be denied the right to decide an application.

Unlike the Minister, and indeed the Prime Minister, I do not hold nimbys responsible for the recession or the housing crisis. They might be a contributing factor, but I do not think that they are the primary reason for the slow-down in house building that we have in this country. I am sure the Minister and I can trade reasons for that on other occasions.

The majority of people in my constituency, and I am sure in many others, want to see development. They know that development means more jobs, houses and opportunities. They just want to ensure that the development will be in the overall interests of their area and their specific community. The impact assessment states:

“Applicants will be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether they would prefer to use the infrastructure planning regime and will...do so where they see a...benefit.”

Local residents will want to be sure that the decision to take this route—if developers decide to take the infrastructure planning route—is not just to the benefit of the developer, but that it works in their interests too. The Government have some way to go in reassuring local communities that if a developer decides to go straight to the Planning Inspectorate, local residents maintain a right to have a say in the process and it will not be made unduly difficult for them to make their views heard.

In particular, residents will be keen to know that the net benefit to a developer is not the ability to bypass local concerns. A statement from the Secretary of State setting out why the major infrastructure regime is to apply would therefore be enormously desirable. If my constituents were shown clearly why a development was in the national interest, along with the investment and jobs it could bring to the area, they would be much more likely to support it and the company responsible for it. Conversely, stripping away the power of their elected representatives without an explanation would have the opposite effect. It would undermine trust in the planning system and engender public disapproval, which can only be bad for the developer and the Government.

It is particularly important that there is clarity about why projects are to be considered under this separate regime, given the testimonies that the Committee heard from witnesses who feel that there is little evidence to suggest that broadening the major infrastructure regime would actually speed up the process. Indeed, we heard from the Minister that the Government do not expect that broadening the regime will speed up the planning process. I was rather surprised to hear the Minister say that. I have said that he is full of surprises, but he surprised me yet again. We have the clause, the consultation that underpins it, the outcome of the consultation and the new regime. I would have thought that at the heart of all that would be the idea of speeding up the process of national infrastructure projects to deliver growth sooner rather than later. Perhaps I am wrong. Will the Minister correct me if I have the Government’s logic wrong?

In his evidence, Malcolm Sharp of the Planning Officers Society said that the regime is necessary for big pieces of infrastructure kit such as airports but the need had not been demonstrated for other schemes. He said:

“There is no evidence that it”—

the 2008 regime—

“will be quicker to deal with complex schemes. I take your point about kit. That is where planning really got into trouble in terms of the big schemes like Heathrow. Terminal 5 gave planning a bad name. Generally, in my view, the normal development of an industrial estate or a mixed-use community is something we can handle properly under the existing system.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 106 Q250.]

The Secretary of State must be able to clearly show that each application to be decided by him is in the public interest, that the development is demonstrably a nationally significant project and that he will be able to decide more quickly and more effectively than the local authority. If he cannot, I say to the Minister that I do not think any of us understand the point of the clause.

Amendment 104 seeks to ensure that the definition of “nationally significant” is set out in published criteria. It does so by inserting a stipulation that in order to qualify under subsection (1) the Secretary of State,

“considers that, subject to published criteria,”

a project is of national significance. The Government are moving some way towards that with the consultation, but we want to make sure that the outcome of the consultation is reflected in the regulations that underpin the clause.

As it stands, the clause could muddy the waters and slow down the planning process much more than it could speed it up. We discussed the lack of clarity about what is to be included in business and commercial. The next test for the planning application will be to prove that it is of national significance. The National Infrastructure Planning Association said:

“The first stage is the statutory instrument and the second is the judgment by the relevant Secretary of State as to whether your scheme is of national significance.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 114, Q265.]

Making such a judgment consistently and transparently without any criteria may be difficult for the Secretary of State. To show that we on the Opposition Benches are being fair, that applies to any Secretary of State. We are not making a particular point about this Secretary of State, although we could.

A lack of clarity may dissuade developers from using that route, as they will not be able to ascertain, prior to application, whether their project is likely to be accepted under the regime. Conversely, setting out the type of investment that Government consider to be nationally significant and worthy of fast-tracking could provide a much-needed boost for inward investment.

As I said earlier, criteria for national significance could relate to the value of the development—the size of investment from the company linked to the project; contribution to a key industry, such as green technology; the number and type of jobs to be created and whether those are for young people or particular sectors of the population that are facing underemployment. I hope the Minister accepts that all the issues that I have mentioned, which should be dealt with in a plan for growth, are desirable, and that the Government want to encourage those. If so, criteria for national significance are essential.

I should also like to draw the Minister’s attention to oral evidence sessions in which we were told that a national policy statement is the best way of ensuring that we have clear criteria on what constitutes “nationally significant”. We will debate the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich in a moment, but it is important that we consider a national planning policy in this regard. Trudi Elliot, chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute, said:

“If this provision is going to work, there would need to be a national policy statement that gives some clarity around it.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 106, Q250.]

We agree. I hope that the Minister seriously considers taking the amendments on board.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The hon. Lady is concerned about the possibility of the Secretary of State’s acting on a whim. I reassure her that I have never met a less whimsical Minister than the Secretary of State. He is a man of firm purpose, clearly advertised in advance and pursued thoroughly and without deviation. There is no risk of whimsicality, certainly not while the current Secretary of State is the decision maker on such matters.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Of course this is not about any particular Secretary of State; it is about Secretaries of State, per se, and about having insurance for the future.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Thinking of the noble Lord Prescott, there was a man who was seized by whims regularly, leading to such great successes as the regional fire centres and other great products of ministerial whimsicality.

The hon. Member for City of Durham appeared to lack understanding of the point of offering an opportunity, but not a compulsion, for certain projects to go down this route. Government Members fundamentally believe that the way to improve the performance of almost anything is by injecting a certain amount of choice and competition into the process. That applies just as much to Government and bureaucratic processes as to things elsewhere in society.

As the hon. Lady said, this route will not necessarily be quicker than the local authority route. We believe, however, that it is the absolute best way to ensure that local authorities handle things responsibly and efficiently, while properly taking into account local opinion and properly going through all the required processes. The best way to ensure that is to make sure that local authorities understand that an alternative is available to the promoters of major projects and that they therefore need to demonstrate, through pre-application discussions and everything else, a constructive and pragmatic approach that the developer will want to continue to go down. It is because of competition that we can expect performance, timeliness and efficiency to improve.

The hon. Lady has developed a pronounced concern for the right of local people to have their opinions heard, and my hon. Friends and I share that concern. Indeed, we might even claim to have got there first, because the proposal builds on the previous Government’s proposals for the Infrastructure Planning Commission, but with one key difference: we have got rid of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, while keeping the process and making it democratically accountable, by making the decision maker the Secretary of State, who is a Member of Parliament and accountable to it.

The Secretary of State can be hauled across the coals in Parliament for those decisions. That democratic backstop was not in the original legislation that the Labour party brought into law—we have introduced it—and it will make the process fundamentally more acceptable. We have a requirement at the start for consultation on anything that goes down this route and there is a decision maker at the end who is an elected politician, accountable to the House.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Does the Minister recognise that from a business’s point of view that very change has increased uncertainty and undermined confidence in the system?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I make no apology to any business for making decisions in a democratically accountable way. If businesses cannot cope with that, frankly, they should move to China, where things are not democratically accountable. We believe in doing things, whether nationally or locally, through democratically accountable decision makers.

I will move on to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham. I reassure her that we genuinely believe that the amendment is unnecessary. First, under clause 21, the Secretary of State will be required to give reasons for making a direction under proposed new section 35ZA(10) of the Planning Act 2008. We are happy to give what she wants, but the amendment is not required for that.

Secondly, on publishing the criteria, I point the hon. Lady to the fact that call-in criteria are published. Call-in has been used much more frequently by successive Secretaries of State than this measure is ever likely to be used. The call-in criteria are published in written ministerial statements. Indeed, we just altered the call-in criteria in a small way, which led to a further written ministerial statement on the subject.

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady: we are consulting on criteria up front because that is a good idea. It would be a bit bizarre, having consulted on them, not to say what conclusions we had drawn. Although I resist the proposal in her amendment, I offer the reassurance that publishing the call-in criteria is a strongly positive thing, which I would hope to emulate in any similar process, such as this one. On that basis, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Right, well, we are having a very positive afternoon, because I am reassured once again. It appears that we will know on what basis the Secretary of State makes his decision and that regulations will set out what is of national significance. However, I will say one thing before withdrawing the amendment. I did not comment on whether, if this route had been devised, everything falling into set criteria would be compulsorily referred to it. I did not suggest that; I was merely stumbling around trying to find a reason why the clause should exist if not to speed up applications. I remain none the wiser about that, but I am sure that we will return to it at a later date. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 21, page 26, line 13, at end insert—

‘(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a proposal for a national policy statement, setting out national policy in relation to this section.’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 113, in clause 21, page 27, line 37, at end insert—

‘(3A) In section 105 (decisions in cases where no national policy statement has effect) after subsection (2)(c) insert—

‘and in the case of a business or commercial development project shall make the decision in accordance with the relevant local plan’.’

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As well as speaking to amendment 91, I will say a few words about amendment 113, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, and she may well be able to add to that.

I must tell the Minister that amendment 91 is a probing amendment, but it is prompted by concerns over some of the inconsistencies and peculiarities in how clause 21 has come into existence. I have already highlighted a discrepancy between the stated public intention to embrace thousands of schemes, which was announced by the Department for Communities and Local Government in September, and the Minister’s minimalist interpretation that these measures are just a spur to efficiency and will only apply in a small number of cases. Would that that were the only inconsistency and area of doubt.

Let us start, however, with a degree of consensus. The 2008 Act framework is now accepted on both sides of the House. When in opposition, the Government were very iffy about the 2008 legislation, but I am glad that, having tweaked it a little bit and therefore feeling able to claim some ownership of it, they are now happy to agree that it is a good way forward to deal with major infrastructure. The principle of the 2008 Act was that policy should be determined nationally to avoid lengthy local inquiries in which measures to mitigate or respond to local impacts were often lost in arguments that were essentially about the principles of the scheme. The Act said quite rightly that, with major infrastructure, the national Government should determine matters of national importance and that that should override the arguments often advanced in public inquiries to try to stop schemes of national importance through a local inquiry network.

There was a great deal of logic in the Act. It short-circuited the process, but it did not remove democratic accountability. I must say that I differ with the Minister on how that democratic accountability was guaranteed. It was guaranteed not simply by being vested in the Secretary of State’s hands, however benign they may have been, but by having a national policy statement endorsed by Parliament.

There was no longer local democratic accountability, because the scheme was taken out of the local framework, but it was subject to explicit parliamentary approval, because of the presence of a national policy statement. That is very much emphasised in the Government’s consultation document on this measure. I will quote from paragraph 39, because I think it is germane:

“National Policy Statements provide the policy and decision-making framework for nationally significant infrastructure. They give certainty to developers by making clear the Government’s policy on the different forms of infrastructure, help speed up the examination phase (for example by addressing the question of ‘need’), and guide the decision-maker on the approach that should be taken on the main issues. They are given democratic legitimacy by Parliamentary scrutiny and approval.”

So there we have the framework.

Without a national policy statement, the proposed process would allow developments to be considered without being subject to local democratic consent, as they are currently, and without national democratic consent, other than the Secretary of State’s say-so, which may or may not be adequate. It is certainly not as adequate as parliamentary scrutiny of the national policy statement.

We know of the Local Government Association’s deep reservation about clause 21—it is very strongly opposed to it. This morning, the Minister of State waxed on at great length about how Government amendment 52 to clause 13 had the LGA’s wholehearted support. I am sorry that he is not here now, because I could remind him of its wholehearted disapproval of the clause, which has no local support at all.

Many reservations have been expressed by planners familiar with the processes. In his evidence, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, Dr Hugh Ellis from the Town and Country Planning Association said:

“I think the real risk is about consent and trust in the planning system. Those are the real principles that we should address. Whether or not the Government mean it—I am sure they do not—this measure, and particularly clause 21, sends a message to communities that they are no longer critically involved in determining decisions that affect them. That is where the real risk lies in clause 21—the perception about whether the planning system is accountable to local people or not.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 100-01, Q240.]

We therefore have real worries about accountability. Not only will local democratic scrutiny be cut out, but without a national policy statement, parliamentary scrutiny is also ruled out. The TCPA has commented on that, and Hugh Ellis’s evidence is again clear:

“We entirely support the idea that you must have a national policy statement… We support it for two reasons. First, the entire lesson of terminal 5 was that if you want an inquiry to move quickly, you must establish Government policy at the national level. Without an NPS, the 2008 Act would have to allow debate on all issues of policy at the examination, which would be a challenge for it. It is not how the 2008 Act is meant to work. Also, without an NPS, Parliament has no opportunity to comment on the purpose of the development.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 106, Q250.]

Those are important messages about accountability.

Why are the Government apparently opposed to national policy statements? I suspect that that is an entirely pragmatic decision relating to the difficulty of defining all potential types of development that might be subject to such statements. In his evidence, Robbie Owen from the National Infrastructure Planning Association gave a pretty clear hint that it would be hard to come up with a definition. He said:

“At one extreme, we are looking at a broad category of commercial mis-development”—

there is an error in Hansard, because I think that he meant mixed development; I hope that he did not mean mis-development—

“and it is hard to contemplate how the Government could sensibly produce a national policy statement on that wide variety of schemes, whereas, for example, if it were more focused on research and development, big business parks or mineral extraction, it would be easier to contemplate a national policy statement that dealt with those issues.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 115, Q266.]

That is probably the nub of the problem.

The response is a pragmatic one from a Government who do not see how they can define a national policy statement to cover all the issues, but that of course suggests that the impact of the clause will be to take the 2008 Act procedures into territory that is not particularly appropriate. On that, we have to return to an important observation by Dr Ellis, who said:

“Our concern is that the 2008 Act was not intended to deal with complex social and economic development embedded in communities. It was designed for hard kit under the four categories that the 2008 system sets out.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 106, Q250.]

That gets us to the real essence, which is that using the 2008 Act procedures, taking them into territory that they are not well equipped to deal with and compromising the principle of the 2008 Act—and the democratic accountability that underpinned it—is to shoehorn in several other types of development that are inappropriate.

We then see the Government’s embarrassment over issues such as retail developments and housing. We have had pretty clear steer from them that they do not consider it appropriate to deal with housing or retail development under the arrangement. However, let us we think back to the evidence from the experts. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said earlier, when Liz Peace was asked what major project would be appropriate, she came up with King’s Cross. Of course, that would be ruled out immediately because it has an element of retail and an element of housing. We now know that the Government have come up with such a proposal and are wrestling with definitional problems because they would not feel terribly comfortable with the implications if it were to extend to thousands of projects, as they envisaged originally.

Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if an industrial estate were being built, there must be a small element of other provision such as cafés and retail, otherwise people would be encouraged to drive off site? Such provision is not the purpose of the development but the supporting service potentially for the workers on that site.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She has made a case against her own Government because it is precisely in the nature of mixed developments that there is an element of other things, either retail or housing, but the Government are saying emphatically that that will rule out the use of the procedure in such cases and that even a single house could not be considered under the procedure. That is nonsense because large developments such as King’s Cross might qualify. We might agree that the scale of development, the fact that it crosses borough boundaries and thus involves more than one local authority might make it appropriate for that to be considered under this procedure rather than the normal, local procedure, but that is ruled out by the Government’s decisions. I am highlighting the confusion on their part about precisely what schemes will fall within the remit of the procedure.

The Government are in trouble, which is why we should help them to solve the problem by tabling a simple amendment that proposes a national policy statement. I have already said why they might find that technically difficult, but my hon. Friend has proposed an alternative, which is to say, “In that case, localism prevails and the decision must be taken in conformity with the local plan.”

I put it to the Minister that he cannot have it both ways. If he wants to be regarded as a localist, he must accept that proper democratic accountability must be exercised through Parliament with a national policy statement to ensure that decisions are not made outside the democratic process. If he cannot produce a national policy statement—for reasons I fully understand because of the complexity involved—he must insist that matters are taken in conformity with the local plan. That, at least to some extent, will assuage the LGA’s anxieties. Having stressed that my proposal is a probing amendment, I hope that the Minister will understand the logic of accepting amendment 113, under which, in such circumstances, the decision must be taken in conformity with the local plan.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My right hon. Friend has made an excellent case in support of amendment 91, about which I shall say something in a moment, but I am sure that the Committee will want to know that I am preparing myself for a rejection yet again by having tabled amendment 113. Given what we have heard this afternoon, in the perhaps more unlikely set of circumstances that the Government will reject amendment 91, I offer them an alternative way out in the spirit of being helpful that seems to be descending on members of the Committee, rather late in the day but welcome all the same.

We know from the witnesses that there is a lot of concern about the fact that the clause leads to a deviation in the process for assessing applications under the Planning Act 2008, because it required a national policy statement to be in place. Trudi Elliott of RTPI said she thought it was important to have a national policy statement that gives clarity around a decision. Dr Ellis of TCPA said:

“Without an NPS, the 2008 Act would have to allow debate on all issues of policy at the examination, which would be a challenge for it. It is not how the 2008 Act is meant to work. Also, without an NPS, Parliament has no opportunity to comment on the purpose of the development.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 106, Q250.]

That is clearly a part of the democratic scrutiny that the Minister has not yet taken into consideration.

Robbie Owen said that

“the Planning Act anticipates that there might be cases when decisions come to be made under the process and when there is no national policy statement in effect. In that situation, the legislation obliges the Secretary of State, as the decision maker on the individual scheme, to have regard to a list of other things, particularly any other matters that the Secretary of States thinks are...important and relevant to the decision.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 115, Q266.]

That is precisely where the local plan comes into consideration. It is what amendment 113 is about, because it is saying that where there is not a national policy statement in place, the decision on what should go straight to the Planning Inspectorate or to the Secretary of State to be determined should take the local plan into consideration.

Given the prominence that the national planning policy framework gave to the local plan, it might be useful to remind the Committee of what the NPPF said not only about the local plan, but what local authorities should be doing to promote growth. Both are relevant to the amendment. Paragraph 12 states:

“This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place.”

That makes it very clear to me that the Government are expecting that the local plan will be at the centre of decision making for what happens and what is determined for local areas. I cannot foresee a set of circumstances in which the Government would not want the local plan to be taken into consideration in determining an application, and therefore I have no idea why they would reject the amendment.

The NPPF is interesting in another regard: the way in which it suggests to local authorities that they should be promoting economic growth already. Again, it gets back to the position we were in with the previous group of amendments, struggling to find a rationale for the clause. Paragraph 20 of the NPPF states:

“To...achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century.”

Paragraph 21 continues:

“Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations. Planning policies should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment”.

The NPPF should

“set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which...proactively encourages sustainable economic growth”.

It would

“set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment”.

It would

“support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting”.

It would

“positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries”.

It would

“identify priority areas for economic regeneration”—

and, critically, in the context of the amendment—

“infrastructure provision and environmental enhancements”.

Finally, it would

“facilitate new working practices”.

On the basis of that exhortation, which was given to local authorities in the NPPF, it is not entirely clear to me why the clause is necessary at all, as the previous Minister stated about the NPPF when the Localism Act 2011 was going through Parliament.

The Committee might like to note that in the 50 pages of the NPPF, the local plan is mentioned 195 times. That might lead us to believe that the Government are serious in considering local plans and putting them at the heart of decision making. If that is the case, I cannot see why they will not accept the amendment. That is especially the case if, as I strongly suspect, they are not going to create national policy statements for the various criteria, sets of circumstances and the applications that fall into them that will be produced in due course.

It might help the Committee if I bring along one of the national policy statements, on renewable energy infrastructure, of which this is just a part. It is enormously helpful in detailing what is meant by renewable energy infrastructure, where it might go and what considerations need to be taken into account. Again, it is not clear to me why the Minister would reject creating national policy statements for business and commercial developments, or why he would not want a decision to be made in line with the local plan.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Being offered help by the right hon. Gentleman is a bit like being offered a lift across a river by an alligator. The smile is broad, but the teeth are sharp. However, it is impossible to reject the hon. Lady’s advances, particularly when they are so tenderly offered. I hope that everybody in the Committee will understand that the differences between us on this issue are relatively slight. I hope therefore to be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that their amendments should be withdrawn.

Our commitment to the provisions created in the Planning Act 2008 and the national policy statements is absolutely undiminished. Indeed, eight national policy statements that were started under the previous Government have been completed and implemented by the current Administration. There is a key difference between those categories and what has been proposed in the clause, which is that all infrastructural developments must go through this route. It is mandatory for any infrastructure developments that fall under the categories relating to the national policy statements to go through this route. It is therefore essential that there is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a policy that has been debated in Parliament and agreed by Parliament to decide those particular applications, because there is nowhere else for them to go.

That is not the case with what we are proposing for business and commercial developments of major significance, because they will always be able to go through the local route. As I made clear, it is more as a backstop for those who fear that the local authority in question will not be able to deal with it in an expeditious way. They will be able to come through this route. There is not a mandatory route for those developments. That leads me on to something that I hope will reassure the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Lady and all Committee members.

Of course, in making decisions on business and commercial projects of major national significance, the local plan is one of the first things that the Secretary of State will take into account because, as the hon. Lady said, national planning policy, set out in the national planning policy framework, makes it clear that the local plan is most important—it mentions that more than anything else. The point of the national planning policy framework was to put the local plan in the driving seat.

We are not willing to accept the amendment, because that would imply that the local plan was the only thing in the national planning policy framework that could be considered in making decisions about such schemes going through the route. If the amendment were accepted, no other policies in the national planning policy framework could be taken into account. That would be a mistake, because the whole point of such schemes is that they have more than local significance.

The fact that the NPPF will be the prime source of policy guidance for decisions about such projects will suggest clearly to everybody that the local plan has an important weight in the consideration. Therefore it is not necessary or helpful to produce that result with the amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady accept my assurance that the local plan would be a key element taken into account by the Secretary of State in assessing such points.

We have not absolutely ruled out a national policy statement in these areas, but the right hon. Gentleman is right about the problem. Our current position and instinct is that this is not a mandatory route for such developments and we would not want to introduce policy statements that undermined the local plan. We want the Secretary of State, as decision maker, to give a great deal of attention to the local plans. We are not persuaded that national policy statements for all business and commercial developments that could fall under such a provision would be workable or wise. However, we are consulting on that and open to arguments to the contrary.

On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady are reassured and that the right hon. Gentleman asks leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have made it clear that this is a probing amendment, so the Minister will be pleased that I intend to ask leave to withdraw it. However, I should like to press him a little bit further. I hear his assurances and think that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and I would be content if there were rather more definitive confirmation that the local plan would be an important point of reference as part of the process. I take his point that it cannot be the only point of reference—there must be consideration of other NPPF issues—but it would help to have a positive steer on how the Secretary of State, who will not be subject to the same democratic accountability as a national policy statement, will, when reaching his decision, be guided by the local plan as well as the national planning policy framework.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I do not know what form that reassurance should take—whether some guidance, or whatever. However, I am sure that we are happy to give the right hon. Gentleman—whether in a letter or whatever form is appropriate—some kind of explanation about the primary role of the local plan in the NPPF, saying that its use as the key guide will imply great weight to the local plan. I am happy to make that assurance on the record.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I seek your guidance, Mr Howarth, because I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but my hon. Friend’s amendment is joined with it and she should have the opportunity to express a view.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

The hon. Lady will be given that opportunity.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I intend to take the opportunity. Clearly, we are on a roll this afternoon. It is a pity that we cannot bring back clause 1 into the discussion because we might get somewhere. I heard what the Minister had to say both about the national policy statement and about taking the local plan into account, and I am somewhat reassured. On that basis, I will not press amendment 113 further.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Planning Act 2008 pre-application procedure—

‘(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows:

(2) After section 54 insert—

“Chapter 4 - General

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I want to make a few observations. We have had a good, constructive debate, but it is worth putting on the record that the more that we have discussed the clause, the less convinced I am of the need for it in the first place. I am not sure whether that view is shared by all my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I am a little unclear why the clause is necessary. I stress that I do not disagree with the process. We had many difficult debates when the Planning Act 2008 was going through Parliament, and we accepted the need that, in some circumstances, it was necessary for big projects to have national determination as long as that was underpinned by a national policy statement. At the time, we were thinking particularly of big-kit projects.

Extending the use of the provision, as the clause will do, without a national policy statement and without some safeguards in place is perhaps a measure too far. Several people who either sent in evidence or who addressed the Committee directly said that the proposal was counter to the principle of local decision making and that thresholds should be defined, so that only projects of truly national significance were included. We are not yet at that stage because we are not sure what will be included, but I accept that such matters will be subject to consultation.

The Town and Country Planning Association said that there was no evidence that local authorities were not already carrying out the role efficiently, so it was again questioning the need for the clause. Interestingly, it considered the two examples that the Department for Communities and Local Government had given to show why the clause was necessary. It said that the DCLG had

“offered two examples of the kinds of development which might be drawn into the new regime. These are large scale manufacturing sites and ‘leisure parks’. (Housing has been excluded). The TCPA is not aware of any evidence of delay to either form of development. The new Land Rover engine plant at Wolverhampton is a case of how public investment was backed by a Regional Development Agency (RDA), local authority cooperation and a timely planning process.”

We wonder therefore why such issues would then be brought into the regime or, indeed why a need would be suggested for such a regime. It went on to state that the

“planning system cannot be seen as any form of delay to this successful investment. In the case of Toyota in Derby there were criticisms of local authorities doing too much to facilitate development. The TCPA would question that a leisure park can constitute infrastructure of national importance.”

The point of the quote is that it questions not only the need for the clause in the first place, but, in particular, the examples that the Department has given as evidence that such measures are needed.

I will not rehearse the various points that my hon. Friends and other members of the Committee have made about the need to have safeguards. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the consultation process and, in due course, the regulations that will underpin the clause to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

I rise to speak to new clauses 7 and 8, which are, I understand, probing new clauses—no one intends to push them to the vote—that owe their inspiration to the National Infrastructure Planning Association.

It would be helpful to look at new clause 7 in terms of its ability as, for want of a better phrase, a barrier buster. It is intended to introduce some flexibility into a rigid and prescribed system, which reflects the fact that 2008 Act covers a wide range of projects and is a one-size-fits-all regime. Under the new clause, applicants would be free to ask the Government to waive compliance with certain requirements, such as which application documents are required and what they might show if compliance with the strict letter of the requirement would be impossible, unnecessary or impracticable. That would help to minimise pre-application costs and keep the pre-application period to the shortest possible. There is no reason to think that that would be abused by applicants and, anyway, all the discretion in deciding whether to give a waiver would lie with the Government.

An equivalent system has existed for some time in the Transport and Works Act 1992 regime, which was set up for authorising tramways, tube and docklands light railway extensions. It has worked extremely well. I understand that the National Infrastructure Planning Association and others are talking to officials about such a waiver. I understand that the probing new clauses have been tabled to raise the issue now, but also to allow that discussion to continue and, if appropriate, to come forward on Report.

New clause 8 relates to something of a spat between the NIPA and the Planning Inspectorate. Any project is likely to be authorised by a development consent order, and the largest element of cost in that is the project examination. There seems to be a difference of opinion on what the relevant days are that PINS is charging for. In essence, it comes down to whether it charges for the entire length of time from day one to day x when it finishes, counting every day in that period, or the days that are worked by PINS on the project. The Minister will understand that that can make a significant difference to the project. The fee for a single inspector is some £1,400 a day, and if there are three or four inspectors, it can go up to £4,500 a day.

I raise those points in a probing nature, to allow the Minister to reflect and to continue to have discussions with officials and the National Infrastructure Planning Association.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

We should only make law when it is necessary, and the Minister has said that he hopes that this is unnecessary, so it is a strange clause to have in place. It is necessary so that it is unnecessary. The challenge to us is well put in Lorraine Barter’s submission, in which she writes that clause 21 is the

“cause of some worry and alarm”,

and that it

“would give seemingly arbitrary powers to the Secretary of State to take away from the local community, local councillors and Local Planning Authorities, the power of local decisions on ever more increasing developments.”

She continues:

“The number of such developments could be minimal”—

echoing the Minister’s hope that they will be minimal—

“but each one may give rise to alarm in any particular local community in the country”.

That is really the issue; the clause shifts the balance from localism to centralism, which is a balance that we are always concerned about. Having heard the Minister, I am not convinced, although he has worked hard to meet the concerns, for which he must be applauded. However, I do not think he has demonstrated the need for what he himself recognises as, we hope, an unnecessary clause.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I shall start by addressing new clauses 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who, unfortunately, is helping to form a quorum in the Backbench Business Committee, and were spoken to eloquently by my other hon. Friend the Member for Henley. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that he made. He said that we should be looking at all times at the processes and procedures that we operate—in central Government just as much as in local government—to ensure that they are genuinely necessary and not just procedures that people have set up, that we have all got used to and that it is easier to carry on following than to think of new ways to do things. It is always constructive and welcome for us in central Government to be prodded to revaluate and see whether there are quicker, more efficient ways to do things.

As my hon. Friend anticipated, I am not able to accept the new clauses, but I would like quickly to say why in each case. New clause 7 suggests that there would be a discretion to seek a direction from the Secretary of State for a waiver against certain provisions in the Planning Act 2008, specifically in relation to pre-application consultations and the information provided. We feel that, where a specific application may be taken away from a local authority and put into this route, whereby the Secretary of State makes the decision, the pre-application discussions are almost more important, because that is when local concerns can most readily be taken into account and shape the application. Similarly, with the information provided, it is almost more important that it is full at that point, so that local people have a chance to respond to and comment on it and make their representations. So, although I have a great deal of sympathy with the underlying intent to simplify and streamline, in this case that would be inappropriate and undermine local democracy and consultation.

With new clause 8, if anything, my hon. Friend made an even stronger point, which was that the Planning Inspectorate, like every other form of government—local, national or, indeed, European—should look carefully at its imposts on the taxpayer and ask itself whether they are fair and reasonable. Although I would not want to fetter the Planning Inspectorate’s already constrained ability to charge fees for the valuable work that it does, I nevertheless take on board the concern about how such fees are charged. I have already had conversations with the Planning Inspectorate about how exactly it measures time and whether that time measurement relates to work done rather than just the clock ticking, and I will be sure to keep on the case. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I urge the Committee not to support the new clauses.

We have discussed the groups of amendments in full, so I would like very briefly to talk about the fundamental intent. There seems to be some mystification by the Opposition, not just on this clause, but on the point of the whole Bill. I would like to try to set it in context. The Government spent their first two years, across the board, consistently trying to find ways to restore power as closely as possible to the people whom decisions would affect. That is why we have given schools the ability to run themselves by becoming academies, and it is why we have put in place an enormous range of new powers, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove spent so much time on, to empower communities to take charge of the important assets in their areas, to set up community housing trusts and to do a whole range of things that they were not previously allowed to do without asking permission of other authorities.

We have given much greater freedom, a general power of competence and much greater responsibility to local authorities. What we find after two years—as is true in education and most other areas of public service—is that although the vast majority of local authorities have responded entirely positively to the new freedoms and are fulfilling their responsibilities in a timely and serious way, a few are not. We believe that it is the right role for central Government, having backed off the business of actually making the decisions the whole time, to have the ability to fire a shot across the bows of those authorities that are persistently recalcitrant, to encourage them to improve their performance for fear of temporarily losing responsibility altogether. That is what underpins clause 1 on poorly performing authorities; it underpins the clause about affordable housing and section 106; and it underpins this clause.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Once again, the Minister deploys the argument that the clause is not there to hit large numbers of authorities, but just the most egregious examples of recalcitrant authorities who are failing lamentably to deliver. We know from the Local Government Association that 87% of authorities processed all their major schemes within a year, so we are talking about a relatively small number. Will the Minister name them, please?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

It would not be right or proper for a Minister to go around naming specific authorities. [Hon. Members: “What about the Secretary of State?”] For a Secretary of State, there are different possibilities. For a humble Parliamentary Under-Secretary, there are certain things that would not be appropriate, and I do not intend to indulge in them.

The principle is clear. We are setting a limit to what people can get away with under the new freedoms and powers. There is in no way an intention to withdraw the responsibilities or to undermine the powers just given in the Localism Act 2011. We passionately believe that it was the right thing to do. Equally, we passionately believe that it is right for central Government every now and then to say, “Oi, you’re not delivering your responsibilities and we are going to take action to ensure that you do.”

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The Minister has not really answered the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. If he cannot name an authority, could he tell us—yes or no—whether Hackney would be included?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I will not be tempted. Hackney is a fine authority. Its performance on education, having been woeful for decades, has been remarkable in recent years. I am not an expert, but I am sure that there are other areas where its residents might feel that its performance could be improved. However, if I may say so, that does not really relate to the clause, which is not about particular local authorities’ decision making; it is about schemes of major significance and whether they will be adequately dealt with through this route.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The Minister used the phrase “local authorities are getting away with.” Can he be clear about the things they are getting away with that the clause tries to address?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I was making a broad argument about the Bill. Of course, it is more relevant to the clauses on performance in timeliness of decision making on planning applications and on the renegotiation of no longer viable affordable housing commitments in 106 agreements. It is less a case of wilful failure or wilful negligence by a local authority; it is more simply that some of the schemes are very big and complicated. If a scheme happens to be sited in the area of a small district authority, it could completely overwhelm them for very understandable reasons. We are simply making it possible for the promoters of such schemes to look at the situation, have pre-application consultations with the local authority, and then decide whether they feel that a decision that is in the national interest, because it is a nationally significant project, would be more likely to be reached expeditiously through this route than through the local authority route. To be clear, there is less implied criticism of local authorities in this clause than perhaps there is in clauses 5 and 1, where I have been very open about what that implied criticism is.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

By raising clause 1, the Minister tempts me to bring back some amendments, but I will resist. I am pleased that he is now distinguishing clauses 1 and 21, because I was starting to get confused. Clause 21 does not relate to designated authorities, but to all authorities. Therefore a local authority that has been processing applications very well indeed, and taking local views on board and going along with the local plan, could find that under the clause decisions are taken away from it for no reason whatever.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The hon. Lady is a little unfair. She accuses the Government of having introduced a Bill that is a pudding without a theme. Then when I try to describe the theme, she accuses me of talking off the subject of the clause.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I think when we broke for the Division the Minister was on his feet. He is back in the nick of time.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Excuse me if I pant a little, Mr Howarth.

I want to be clear about the clause, lest there has been some misinterpretation, through my own fault and the confusing way I presented my remarks about the whole Bill. Some parts of the Bill deal with cases where local authorities abuse the powers and freedoms that we have given them, and fail to discharge their responsibilities in an efficacious way. The clause is intended to create an opportunity for promoters of major infrastructure projects to look into the possibility of taking those projects through the local authority planning route and to decide, for whatever reason—not necessarily because of the wilful negligence of the local authority, but perhaps, simply, as I said before the Division, because it is a small authority whose planning department has relatively small resources and relatively little experience of major schemes—that because they believe the project to be nationally significant and the local authority is not in a position to deal with it efficaciously they will use the route of the nationally significant major infrastructure project.

We do not expect the clause to be used often. Our estimate is 10 to 20 cases per year; but that number of cases could, in the context of nationally significant major business and commercial projects, have a serious impact on employment growth, income growth and the competitiveness of the country. It would not take many such projects for the measure to be of serious import for the nation’s finances and well-being.

Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside)

In relation to those 10 or 20 projects, what about the 10 or 20 communities who will feel disfranchised from any say in the way things are shaped, regardless of any economic importance, although I am sure that they would take that into account? The trouble with the clause is that it appears to be overriding communities and localism.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

The difficulty with the hon. Lady’s suggestion is that it implies that schemes that currently go down that route—major infrastructure regimes that were put into law by the previous Labour Government—are also somehow denials of local democracy and local community concern. A Labour Government brought in that route, which we are now expanding for a few major business and commercial projects, but large energy and transport ones of the kind that the Labour Government specifically intended to take down that route would fall foul of it.

Such projects would fall even more foul in relation to the hon. Lady’s objection, because in that case the policy determining them would be the national policy statements, which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, whereas, as I have made clear, the policy used by the Secretary of State to determine major business and commercial projects will chiefly be the national planning policy framework, which gives huge weight to the local plan. The local plan will therefore have greater weight in decisions about nationally significant business and commercial projects than it does in those about energy or transport projects determined according to national policy statements. I do not believe that the hon. Lady can have a concern about the proposal and not have an even greater one about what was proposed by her own Government.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I do not want to tease the Minister, but he said earlier this afternoon that the Government had not yet made up their mind not to have national planning statements. He has just implied that such a decision had been made, so will he now put the record straight?

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I try to pick my words carefully, but I do not do so as expertly as the right hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that we are far from persuaded of the case for national policy statements for two reasons. One is that we would have to do so many, because business and commercial covers so many categories. The other, as I explained to the hon. Member for North Tyneside, is that, by definition, those national policy statements would tend to undercut the NPPF and the NPPF’s weight in local plans. The NPPF has many things that involve material considerations, but the local plan is a very important part of it, and a national policy statement would be liable slightly to undercut the weight of the NPPF. That is why we are very far from persuaded, but being very from persuaded does not mean we have completely closed our mind. I hope never to close my mind on any issue in this place, so I urge the Committee to back this important clause.

Clause 22 - Postponement of compilation of rating lists to 2017

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 22, page 28, line 30, at end add—

‘(11) The Secretary of State may not by order appoint for this section to come into force until—

(a) he has published calculated estimates of the total numbers of those ratepayers who would be liable to pay more and of those who would be liable to pay less to their billing authority if this section were or were not brought into force, and

(b) he has consulted with representatives of those likely to be affected by the bringing into force of this section, after publishing the information required under subsection (11)(a).’.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 93, in clause 27, page 30, line 29, leave out ‘16 and 22’ and insert ‘and 16’.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Clause 22 is one of the most extraordinary clauses in what is a pretty extraordinary Bill. It will postpone the revaluation of business rates that was scheduled to take place from 2015, so breaking a tradition of more than 20 years of regularly uprating business rates according to an anticipated timetable that everyone understood, and which was not subject to political interference.

Amendment 92 has two purposes. First, it would require the Secretary of State, before bringing in the postponement of the revaluation by order, to publish estimates of the likely impact of that policy change on how many business rate payers are better off, worse off or unaffected. Secondly, it would require the Secretary of State to consult those affected before the introduction of the measure.

A shocking truth that emerged clearly from witnesses’ comments during our first few sittings was that none of them expected the proposal to happen. Even those who were neutral about it—for example, the CBI—expressed surprise that there had not been more consultation, but most were absolutely coruscating in their comments about the Government decision. I shall quote one or two of them. Mr Edward Cooke from the British Council of Shopping Centres said quite openly:

“We question the viability of the data that is being produced by the VOA. In its own words, the data is based on very limited market evidence…and it is not subject to the rigour of moderation or validation, so there are some big question marks over it and, therefore, the outcome of its assumption that 800,000 assessments would be better off.”

That is a pretty damning remark from someone who clearly knows the subject. He went on to say:

“I think that if the justification is to create certainty to business, then shifting the goalposts, as has been proposed, does quite the opposite.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 43-44, Q10-Q11.]

The people for whom this was supposedly being introduced are absolutely damning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe asked Liz Peace from the British Property Federation how she responded to the fact that Ministers had been

“saying that there were more winners than losers”.

She said quite simply:

“We do not believe that, frankly.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 46, Q18.]

This is an extraordinary situation.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

My right hon. Friend mentioned Liz Peace. I would like to take him back a few sentences. She said that one of the problems with clause 22 was that she did not see how it related to the rest of the Bill. Does he agree?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I agree entirely. The only point of difference is that I cannot see how various clauses relate to the rest of the Bill. It is a strange collection of disparate elements. Liz Peace is right that the clause does not seem to have any relevance to the Bill’s objectives, which are supposedly to promote growth and infrastructure. It is very difficult to imagine how postponing by two years the impact of the revaluation could have any such effect.

Not only the witnesses who came before us are worried. I cannot say that I am a regular reader of Retail Life, but last week’s issue contained a letter from Poundland, which has 400 stores and employs some 10,000 people throughout the country. It states:

“I refer to the recent announcement of the Government’s proposal to postpone the 2015 rating revaluation until 2017 and write to provide comment on what I strongly believe is a reckless decision given the current decline of the retail market…Many retail centres have witnessed significant falls in rental value since 2008 and, as a result, the business rates liability as a proportion of the overall outgoings has increased. This is an anomaly many retailers nave relied upon being corrected as part of the 2015 revaluation. How can our Government possibly justify a postponement that will result in businesses continuing to pay rates based upon rents at the market’s peak in 2008 rather than have them readjusted to fit with the present economic climate?”

A wholly convincing argument, which Liz Peace picked up in her evidence to us:

“Parts of the economy are suffering, and it seems absolutely bizarre that you want to lock in their suffering for another couple of years. That is why we are fundamentally opposed to this. We accept that some areas that would have risen will not rise. Is that fair when their values have actually gone up and they might legitimately have been asked to pay larger rates?”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 43, Q10.]

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Is it not ironic that, when we have attention on the high street from the Portas initiative—small amounts of money available for some communities—such a disadvantage should be built into high street communities and retailers in areas such as my constituency by the lack of revaluation on the timely basis that they expected?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head—he beat me to it. I was going to refer to the Portas report, but I will not need to because he made that point forcefully. When people are trying to think about what can be done to save high streets that are suffering, postponing the impact of the revaluation is, in Liz Peace’s words, a “kick in the teeth” to the retail sector. The Government have made an extraordinary decision.

The one justification we have heard from Ministers is that the number of businesses that will gain from this measure is far greater than the number that will lose, and therefore there is benefit for business. That is the one argument they have deployed that might have had some credibility. However, now let us listen to the comments of the experts. Members of the Committee will all have received the letter dated 28 November from Jerry Schurder of Gerald Eve. Jerry Schurder is one of the most respected figures in this sector, and he wrote to us just a week ago. I will quote the relevant parts of his letter.

“We refer to our written evidence dated 12 November and in particular to paragraph 6.3 in which we made initial reference to the document issued the same day by the Valuation Office Agency. ‘VOA’s high level estimates of non-domestic rental and rating assessment movements for England’.

We have now had an opportunity to read and analyse this data and are able to expand upon and justify the comment we made at 6.3b that ‘The only basis on which the VOA is able to claim that 800,000 businesses would have seen increased bills at the 2015 revaluation is to include in that number the 520,000 hereditaments which on its own admission it had no data readily available to analyse and therefore it had to make an unsubstantiated assumption that they would have faced increases in rates liability.’”

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend read from that letter to the Committee. The VOA’s own analysis shows, at table 2 on page 5 that was attached to the impact assessment, that apart from retail in the east midlands and parts of London—similarly for office and industrial—everyone would have either saved a little, saved none or been better off. The only thing skewing the figures were these 520,000 properties that increased by 5%.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly telling point. It is astonishing that these 520,000 properties played a key role in the VOA’s assessment that 800,000 would have lost, and therefore would benefit from postponement, when, in practice, there are no data readily available to analyse those cases, and the VOA had to make an unsubstantiated assumption that they would have faced increases in rates liability.

The letter continues:

“Gerald Eve subscribes to a database which provides fortnightly updates of the entire Rating List which has enabled us to identify the numbers of properties within each of the property uses referred to in the VOA analysis.

In justifying the postponement of the 2015 revaluation of business rates, Valuation Office Agency data has been used by ministers to claim that ‘800,000 premises would have seen a real term increase in their rates at a 2015 revaluation. This compares to 300,000 seeing reductions’.

These estimates are by the VOA’s own admission high level, imperfectly calculated and not a projection of what would happen at an assumed 2015 revaluation antecedent valuation date of 1 April 2013.”

The letter then continues with a detailed breakdown of all the component parts. Members of the Committee will have seen that and therefore I will not take them through it. I will simply read the conclusion:

“In conclusion, the number who would benefit from the revaluation is on the VOA’s own data clearly far greater than the Government claims and the suggested 800,000 increases is incorrect on the VOA data and requires sweeping unjustified assumptions.

Based on what can be reasonably inferred from the VOA’s estimates and the evidence it says it has collected, about 350,000…premises would see their bills fall, and about 377,400…premises would see their bills rise.

There is no justification or support for the claim that 800,000 premises would have seen increases.”

That comes from one of the most respected businesses in the field, and it tears to shreds the Government’s position. That is the basis for my amendment. Given that devastating critique, the Government should withdraw the clause altogether, but if they do not, they cannot justify opposing amendment 92, which simply states that before introducing the provision they must publish estimates of the consequences of postponing the revaluation, which one hopes will be sound and properly based, and must consult those affected. That is the least that they owe to the business community, which is rightly alarmed by the proposal and the consequences for large numbers of businesses that are suffering at the moment and face the prospect of having to pay more in business rates for two years longer than they should have because of the postponement.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

I applaud my right hon. Friend’s work on this exceptionally well-crafted amendment. Reading it is like reading poetry, in many respects. The amendment is useful because it insists on consultation and holding the Government to account. In fact, both amendments would do that. The amendments are about transparency and accountability in government.

Like my right hon. Friend, I should like to draw on some evidence that we heard. The CBI said:

“The business-wide benefits of changes to the business rates regime are overstated”

and

“the CBI has concerns about the lack of consultation and impact assessment that has taken place on this policy. Ministers themselves admit that the assumptions behind the change are based on ‘limited rental market evidence’”.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:

“Rather than creating certainty for businesses the postponement in fact creates uncertainty.”

It continued:

“A delay till 2017 will also result in even greater changes in values and larger swings in liabilities creating even more uncertainty”.

It also said:

“The purpose of revaluations is to redistribute liability in line with relative movements in property values since the previous revaluation. Delaying the revaluation creates unfairness by requiring struggling businesses to subsidise those that have fared relatively better.”

I will return to that point.

The British Property Federation said:

“Clause 22 is of grave concern.”

My right hon. Friend quoted Gerald Eve, which said that,

“the 5 year gap has been accepted since 1990 and is generally viewed as the maximum appropriate period”.

That period is being extended. Gerald Eve continues by saying that Sir Michael Lyons’s review of local government finance in 2007 clearly made the point that Sir Michael was supportive of revaluations occurring more frequently than every five years, not of extending that period.

Colliers says that,

“the Government are ‘throwing a spanner’ in the workings of the market”—

a Conservative Government are throwing a spanner in the workings of the free market—and that:

“By ‘kicking the can’ of the revaluation further down the road, all they are doing is storing up further problems”.

That is what the experts say. I am interested to hear Ministers say whether anybody out there is in favour of the revaluation.

Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside)

My hon. Friend lists a spectrum of businesses that will be affected. Looking to see how far that goes, one of our most beleaguered industries must be the pub trade, the chief executive of which said:

“The revaluation is an opportunity to get a fairer rates bill, so any delay is very unwelcome.”

What a blow it is to that industry, too.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

My hon. Friend is right. For Committee members who are not aware, business rates are usually based on the rentable value of the property, but as my hon. Friend will know, in the pub trade they are based on turnover. There is no doubt that revaluation would be an opportunity. The pub trade has been struggling recently and it would expect to pay reduced business rates were the revaluation to go ahead.

Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat, Burnley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there will be pluses and minuses? A large majority of manufacturing companies will probably see a rise in their business rates, because they have invested in new and more advanced properties. That would certainly create big problems in the north of England, where the hon. Gentleman has his constituency. Companies in the manufacturing sector may have to lay people off to cover the extra cost of the business rate. Does he accept that there are pluses and minuses in everything, and this measure needs to be studied very carefully?

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, but the amendment is exceptionally useful because it explains to everybody who benefits and who does not. I will cover the geographical differences of the measure in a minute.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

To follow the previous intervention, surely if such concerns are being expressed by Members on the Government Benches, accepting the amendment and bringing forward the evidence to try to investigate whether or not manufacturing would be badly hit is something that should happen in the Committee before we determine a clause that may have pros and cons for a whole variety of sectors.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The revaluation has significant consequences and I am in no doubt that rather than stimulating the economy, it will have an adverse impact on a good many businesses.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Liz Peace in her evidence to us singled out manufacturing as another area that would be hit by the measure—in addition to retail.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Before I move on to the geographical aspects of the business rates, let me make another point; I am trying to assist the Minister here. Lots of rumours and gossip are swirling around, suggesting the real reasons why the Government have decided to postpone the revaluation. First, it is suggested that the Valuation Office Agency is so busy dealing with the repatriation of business rates to local government that it does not have time to do the revaluation, which starts in 2013. I hope the Minister will come forth and tell us whether that is true.

Another rumour is that the VOA, with a backlog in excess of 247,000 appeals—that is a quarter of a million businesses appealing their business rates—is unable to cope with the number of appeals. On the current performance of the VOA, it would take about five years to clear the backlog, and new appeals are coming in every day. It is suggested that the Government are postponing the revaluation to create some time and space for the VOA to get on top of the backlog.

It is also rumoured that the Government want to advantage businesses in the south of England at the expense of those in the north of England. Rent levels have gone up in many parts of the south of England, but they have gone down in the north.

One final rumour is that the Government do not want increased business rate bills landing, as they would have done, in April 2015, literally days before a general election. The impact of that on the south of England, in the current heartlands of the Conservative party, is another reason why the Government may not want to carry out the revaluation.

Let me make it clear to the Committee that I do not trade in rumours or gossip. Hard facts and evidence are all that I am interested in. Let me deal with the Government’s own admission, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The Government admit that 300,000 businesses will be worse off because of the clause: 300,000 businesses will not get the reduction in their business rates that the revaluation would have given them. That is the reality.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

My hon. Friend gets to the crux of the clause. Regardless of the non-evidence or the arguments the Government advance, this is about fairness. The whole system of rates is that if people are to pay less they pay less and if they are to pay more they pay more. It is all about the success of their business and supporting businesses across sectors.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. If the revaluation could go ahead the VOA would have to take into account the reduced rents that many businesses now pay. Current business rates are based on high rents that were set in 2008 when property had a very high value. While rents may have remained high in some localities, particularly in the south, they have dropped significantly in parts of the north.

Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is all about relative drops in rents? I would suggest that his data on parts of London and the south are not as accurate as he may think. There have been considerable falls in comparison with minor falls in the north of the country.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

There is no doubt that there are winners and losers from the clause and the policy. The point I am making is that it should be about fairness. It is about redistribution so that those who should pay more, pay more and those who should pay less, pay less. It is commonly said that business rates are the third greatest expenditure of any business. First it is wages; then it is rents and then it is business rates. That is a commonly held view and fairly accurate. I went into a shop in Rochdale three or four weeks ago. The business rates on that property were higher than the rent, so business rates now outstrip rent levels. They are the second biggest outgoing for business. That cannot be right. We cannot have a system that does that.

A Conservative-led Government, ably assisted by the Liberal Democrats, are making businesses pay more taxes than they should. That is the reality. Instead of a fair and proper tax system the Government are making at least 300,000 businesses pay more. It is a bizarre situation that the Government find themselves in with the clause. It is as though they are asking individuals across the country to complete their tax return, then telling those in the north of England that they have to pay more taxes to subsidise those in the south who can pay less. That is what the clause does. It is no way to do government.

Gordon Birtwistle rose—

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat, Burnley)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to bring into his argument the business rate relief that the Government are giving small companies at the present? A lot of small businesses are receiving business tax relief. He makes it sound as though they are all going under because they have to pay too much in business rates.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

There are two important points to make in relation to that. The business rate relief that currently exists for small businesses was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It is an excellent policy and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is paying tribute to that Government, as I am. The reality in terms of the geography is that businesses in Rochdale now have to subsidise businesses in Regent street in London.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

While I accept that point, it is actually a very complex pattern and it varies both from region to region and from sector to sector. It is not just a simple matter of north versus south. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the wording of my amendment, but I take no credit for it at all. I pay tribute to the Clerk who helped me draft it and ensured that it was written in such an impressive and poetic way. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we have some genuinely serious figures that can people look at and form a judgment on, rather than having this particular policy presented to us on the basis of figures that have collapsed under scrutiny.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

I appreciate the intervention from my right hon. Friend. I must say that he has gone down slightly in my estimation, regarding the wording of the amendment, but the Clerks have clearly gone up in my estimation; there is no doubt about that.

Let me finish by making this point. Why do the Government not come clean with businesses and explain why they are making at least 300,000 businesses pay more in business rates?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

Before I call the Minister to respond, first it should be known that the Clerk may well take full credit for the poetry in the amendments but not for the content. Secondly, I know that we prayed in aid the former poet laureate this morning, but let me just remind the Committee of the words of Mario Cuomo:

“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”

I call the Minister.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

As introductions go, that probably gets quite near the bottom.

Let me first outline our principal concerns with amendments 92 and 93. Revaluations do not raise any extra revenue; that is the first essential point. Instead they redistribute the total rates burden among ratepayers, based on up-to-date rateable values. That means that although the total business rates paid do not change at revaluation, it does result in some ratepayers seeing increases in their bills and some seeing reductions.

I quite understand the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich wanting to know as much as possible about what would have happened to business rate bills in 2015. The Valuation Office Agency has produced initial estimates of the 2015 revaluation, which it published on 12 November. Contrary to what Gerald Eve has said, the VOA’s work suggests that 800,000 premises would have seen a real-term increase in their rates, compared with only 300,000 premises that would have seen a reduction. That analysis has been published in full and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee that it represents the best available estimate of the number of ratepayers affected by the clause.

We have heard claims that particular towns and other locations would have seen reductions in rate bills at a 2015 revaluation. Many of those claims have been made by commercial firms and rating agents who advise ratepayers on making appeals. Often their claims are based only on selected prime locations or selected commercial sectors, and they ignore small and local businesses, as well as other sectors such as industry. The VOA’s analysis covers all sectors and all locations, and has been published in full.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The Minister started with prose, but what he has just said is not quite what the VOA analysis says. Table 2, which I referred to earlier, shows that out of retail, office and industrial, only the east midlands and London, in terms of retail, would pay more and everyone else across the country and across the sectors would pay the same or less, with the exception of the 560,000 other properties that are categorised, for which we do not know the breakdown either geographically or in terms of what they are. The VOA is actually saying that there are very few areas where the rates level would go up.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I shall come to the regional breakdown in a moment.

The point I am making is that although the analysis has been published in full for all sectors and all locations, we cannot fully and accurately understand the exact impact of the revaluation without doing the valuations themselves, and that would mean spending around £43 million of public money. What we do know from the analysis is that some sectors would have faced very big hikes indeed: petrol stations would have faced a 28% increase in their tax; the self-catering industry and caravan parks would have faced a 29% increase; hotels would have faced a 6% increase; theatres would have faced a 25% increase; and pubs would have faced an 11% increase. Overall, retail would have seen a tax rise of about 1% above inflation at revaluation 2015, with food retail and convenience stores facing significant tax increases. Shops in some regions would have seen much greater tax hikes than those.

It is also quite wrong to suggest that postponement helps the south at the expense of the north. On the contrary, the Valuation Office Agency analysis suggests that London would have seen by far the greatest reductions in tax paid had the 2015 revaluation gone ahead. Based on the VOA’s estimates, London offices would have seen their rates bill fall in 2015 by some £440 million a year. The Opposition side of the Committee make rather unusual friends of Canary Wharf in that respect.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I listened carefully to what the Minister says. Was he as surprised as I was, when listening to the evidence given to us by business leaders, by how opposed they were to the delay in the revaluation of business rates and how surprised they were that it was taking place without any proper consultation with them or others prior to its happening?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I certainly accept that the decision may well have come as a surprise to them and that they may well have not anticipated it. It is self-evidently true that if they said that they were surprised, they clearly were surprised. However, many of them speak for particular groups and, as I said, particular types of location. It is more interesting that we have seen a more measured response from organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, that cover the whole country and different types of business.

There were also concerns, which the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich touched on, that 530,000 of the 800,000 losers at revaluation 2015 fall, in the VOA’s analysis, within the single category of “other”. The truth is, however, that the VOA has looked at some of the larger categories of property within that class, including petrol stations, hotels and pubs, which would all show increases, so there is evidence and there is the VOA’s professional judgment to support the figure of 800,000 losers.

The amendments also seek to ensure that we consult with representatives of ratepayers before we postpone the revaluation. Of course, we understand the importance of consultation. Both the Government and the Valuation Office Agency have regular forums to discuss business rates. In recent weeks, the Department for Communities and Local Government has held several meetings with those affected by the postponement, including the British Retail Consortium, Energy UK and the Association of Convenience Stores. More such meetings are planned during the passage of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The Minister talks about the VOA evidence, but there were certain groups in the “other” category, including, as he mentioned, petrol forecourts and hotels, that actually would have faced increases had the revaluation proceeded. The Gerald Eve letter states:

“The VOA claims to have evidence to support increases for sectors that make up just 87,400 properties out of this 477,500”.

It is a small element of the total and certainly does not lead Gerald Eve to support the claim that there would be 800,000 gainers from the postponement.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Gerald Eve would have seen the summary on page 6 of the VOA’s analysis, which says:

“This indicative assessment suggests that around 800,000 hereditaments would fall into categories that would see an overall rise in tax payable, despite most of those seeing a fall in their rateable value, and around 300,000 would fall into categories which would see an overall fall in tax payable”.

That is the Valuation Office Agency’s estimate, and I think that Gerald Eve and the right hon. Gentleman would do well to study it.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Of course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had time to reflect on his billing as a friend of Canary Wharf.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

The Minister has either been provided with selective information or is being selective with the information that he is offering the Committee. There is no doubt that London retailers are better off than Rochdale retailers. We can talk about office space in Canary Wharf and everything else, but if we get into the detail, which is what the amendment asks, there is no doubt that London retailers are better off, and are being subsidised by those in Rochdale. That gets to the crux of it. The reality is that it is only an estimate.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman got to the crux of it. This is a long intervention.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

I will get to the crux of it, Mr Howarth. I was addressing the issue of fairness. It is not fair that 300,000 businesses are still subsidising other businesses. Why is that?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

There is of course fairness and unfairness, and winners and losers, in any revaluation, but I caution the hon. Gentleman to be careful, even about describing London as a whole. There will be those on the outskirts of London who will not be gainers in the way that some of the London offices clearly would have been.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

If the Minister is using the figures to justify the position of delay now, what will the projected figures of winners and losers be, come 2017? We could be in an even worse position in the balance of who wins and who loses.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Of course that is possible. In any revaluation there could be more winners, or fewer, but the point now, given the uncertain economic climate, is to give all our businesses some certainty for the next five years, before the revaluation process starts to raise any doubts about their future rate bills. It is because the revaluation is a statutory exercise that we are using primary legislation to stop it for the moment, and have included the measures in the Bill. By putting the date of the next revaluation in the Bill, as well as the requirement for five-yearly revaluations thereafter, we have shown our commitment to keeping rateable values up to date.

I need, finally, to answer one question. The hon. Member for Rochdale asked me what the work load of the Valuation Office Agency was. A number of rumours swirled around the Committee during his speech, and I would like to lay this one to rest. The Valuation Office Agency is well placed to clear the backlog of appeals and deal with the rates retention scheme. It has a network of more than 70 offices, and it plans to clear the 400,000 appeals over the next two years. It is perfectly capable of doing that.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted my amendment, which simply sought to ensure proper figures, and to enable a proper judgment to be reached and for there to be consultation with affected bodies. There is clearly grave doubt about the evidence that the Government have prayed in aid in support of the clause, and deep suspicion and hostility among large sections of the business community, and I therefore ask the Committee to vote for the amendment, to improve what is otherwise a wholly unsatisfactory clause.