Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 67: 67: Clause 13, page 5, line 10, leave out ““The Secretary of State”” and insert ““A local planning authority”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 67, for the record I will say that I am speaking also to a number of my amendments, and that in the group are two government amendments and one from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. They are Amendments Nos. 68, 68C, 69 and 70, government Amendment No. 71, my Amendment No. 71A, government Amendment No. 72, my Amendments Nos. 73 and 73A, Clause 13 stand part, Amendments Nos. 73B to 73F, Clause 14 stand part, and Amendments Nos. 116B and 117A. The provisions we have just been discussing may or may not be benign. I regard Clauses 13 and 14 as malign. That might be a little harsh, but not very. I start by making clear that in our opposition to the provisions in these clauses these Benches are not anti-development. I do not want what we have to say to be read that way. Nor do I want what I have to say to be regarded as being particularly against eco-towns—not that I intend to mention eco-towns, but they do seem to arise in this context. I am very concerned indeed about the proposed planning powers going to the Homes and Communities Agency. I am surprised that the Conservatives’ amendment is relatively benign—very benign, actually—but we will no doubt hear from the noble Lord on that. At a meeting organised by a number of those concerned, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, attended, he commented on there being guidance about how these powers are to be exercised. I have to say that we are seeking a change in the ““what””, not just assurances about the ““how””. I read these clauses as being anti-devolutionary, anti-democratic and something of a paradox. When they were debated in the Commons a lot of assurances were given about consulting local authorities before an order is made. Clause 13(5)(a) refers to consulting a local authority whose area is intended to be included in a proposed designated area, but if as much regard is to be paid to the local authority as we have been led to believe by the debate in the Commons, then, by definition, there should be no need for the clauses. If the consultation is going to take on board what a local authority has to say, why do we need provisions which allow an overriding of the local authority’s position? In the debate in Committee in the Commons, the Minister, Iain Wright, referred to ensuring that local authorities are, "““stepping up to the plate””." ““Doing what we say”” is the only thing that that can mean. He then referred to some local authorities needing ““help and support”” in facing the regeneration challenge. He also referred to, "““the skills agenda—in ensuring that people have the required skills to step up to the plate and make sure that homes and regeneration development is carried out in their area””.—[Official Report, Commons, Housing and Regeneration Bill Committee, 15/1/08; cols. 249-50.]" I find that curious language. The provisions are about taking away the powers that democratically elected local authorities have in the planning arena. If this is to be a mechanism to enable cross-boundary working, the clause is not necessary. I have heard it suggested that this would help local authorities to get together to deal with issues about land which crosses local authority boundaries, but in London the so-called Olympic boroughs got together and agreed how to take forward some very complicated applications without it. By all accounts, they have done so in an efficient and effective manner. Noble Lords have been declaring all kinds of interests and I shall declare that the mother of the wonderful young woman who was my PA at the London Assembly—I miss her greatly—led that process. The rather avuncular term is that it would allow us to help the authorities to work together, but it can be done without this provision. Most of my amendments are in fundamental opposition to these provisions. However, within the group I have some which may be regarded as a tweaking. I would not be content with that but I include them in order to probe some particular points. The cross-boundary issue is dealt with in Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 73. Amendment No. 68C deals with the terminology in condition 1 of the conditions that have to be met before the Secretary of State will make a designation order. Condition 1 is that it is ““appropriate”” for the HCA to be the local planning authority. What does ““appropriate”” mean in this context? It is a term which relates to a matter of judgment and some people will consider that something is ““appropriate”” depending on where they start from in their assessment of a situation. It is a difficult term. Amendment No. 71A would take the plan-making function out of the ““permitted purposes””. I came rather late to the realisation that it is intended that the HCA will have not just development control powers but plan-making powers, and that worries me greatly. As I said, local authorities are elected democratically; we are all familiar with how they operate. On 15 January, the Minister talked about the HCA not riding roughshod over planning legislation but, "““operating within the local development framework””.—[Official Report, Commons, Housing and Regeneration Bill Committee, 15/1/08; col. 252.]" Whose framework would it be in this situation? If the HCA has the plan-making powers, it is the HCA’s local development framework, not the relevant local authority’s local development framework. I do not want to detain the Committee with an exposition of my views about how plan-making is central to the local government function, but it is. The Minister agrees and there are a lot of nods around the table. Therefore, I repeat: whose framework is this? I do not understand how it would operate if competing frameworks were developed by different organisations. Amendment No. 73E talks about the HCA and the local authority acting concurrently. How that can happen is another puzzle for me. Amendment No. 73A provides that the Secretary of State can make an order only if no development plan is in force for the area. Amendment No. 73C, which relates to Clause 14, would require the HCA to comply with the development plan. Amendment No. 73B would leave out Clause 14(3)(b), which reads, "““subject to any specified modifications””." The purpose of the amendment is to probe what that means. It seems to mean that the Secretary of State, by order, can modify, and I assume that ““modify”” means ““extend””. It would certainly change the functions which come from primary legislation with what I would regard as only the very flimsy protection of the parliamentary scrutiny of an order. I say ““flimsy”” because we all know that it is not possible to amend an order. Order-making procedures only allow for views to be stated, and it is very rare for there to be any change. Amendment No. 73D is a matter of semantics but under Clause 14(4) an order can, "““make provision about the application of enactments””." I do not understand why we cannot just say ““apply”” them. If one makes provision about them, then that is something wider than simple, straight application. Therefore, I seek some clarification. The purpose of Amendment No. 73F is to say that if—and I hope that this is never the case—the HCA exercises functions as a local planning authority, the committee which exercises the functions must have a majority of members, not staff. I have taken that from the discussion that we had at an earlier sitting when the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, confirmed that English Partnerships has occasionally operated committees of which the majority, or even all, of the members have been staff. Finally, Amendments Nos. 116B and 117A, although the procedure is flimsy, would turn the order from being subject to the negative procedure to one requiring an affirmative resolution. I have covered quite a lot of ground as quickly as I can. There are big matters of principle here, as well as a lot of detail. I hope that I have dealt with them adequately for this stage. I hope the Minister can satisfy me, but I would be very surprised if she did. We may well have to debate this issue at the next stage because it is fundamental. I beg to move.