Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 2, page 2, line 34, leave out ““section”” and insert ““sections 19(4A) (financial assistance), 44 (local government involvement) and”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments covers a number of different issues. I will start with Amendment No. 2 because I hope it will bring particular joy—I put it as highly as that—to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who was anxious that, having achieved the serious ambition to flag up the partnership, the principle and the psychology of a relationship with local authorities, we should put it in a place in the Bill where everyone would see it. Unfortunately, because of the logic of the architecture, it is stuck at Clause 44. However, the creativity of my officials knows no bounds, and they came up with a linking mechanism: Amendment No. 2 amends Clause 2, which will draw attention to Clause 44—so it is right at the front of the Bill. Any reader of the Bill will understand that the clauses that are mentioned, including Clause 44, relate to the objects of the agency and give them added prominence. The amendment also draws attention to new subsection (4)(a) to Clause 19, concerning financial assistance. We shall discuss that amendment in more depth shortly. A reference to that appears here, as a new subsection could modify the objects of the agency in certain limited circumstances relating to the provision of financial assistance. Although there are more than five amendments here, they cover five separate issues that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which we have given further consideration. On the first set of issues, I still dispute the noble Baroness’s assertion that the Secretary of State’s powers to designate an area and confer planning functions upon it are now centre stage in the Government’s proposals for the HCA. We have had many debates about the relative prominence of the designation powers. They are no more central to our plans for the HCA than they were for English Partnerships, and the noble Baroness herself described them as being there in the background for that organisation. However, I have accepted her reasoning that any situation in which such powers are likely to be used will be capable of being analysed, broken down, defined and articulated, and their relative purpose and functions and the kinds of development could and would be spelt out in a designation order. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 3 to 9 to reflect that. Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to determine that the HCA should be the local planning authority for all permitted purposes under the Act, for all kinds of development, and in respect of all relevant functions. The amendments restrict the Secretary of State from making the blanket statement that all should apply. It would still be open to the Secretary of State to provide that, for example, the HCA should be the local planning authority for all permitted purposes, but she could do so only by an explicit reference to each permitted purpose. The changes made at Report ensure that these are properly consulted on—that is in the Bill—and that the Secretary of State’s thinking is clear and understood for each case. I am content with that because the noble Baroness persuaded me—she is very persuasive—that this is a useful provision. It may make the act of designating an area somewhat more complex, but we have repeatedly said that this will be an exceptional occurrence. Much debate has focused on the ability to confer plan-making powers on the HCA. This amendment ensures that, should we ever propose to do so, full and fair consideration will be given to each of the powers transferred to the HCA. As regards the second issue, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 also respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns. Amendment No. 8 provides that where the HCA has powers and functions conferred on it in relation to permitted purposes and kinds of development, enactments relating to local planning authorities and functions will apply to it. The amendment will remove the power to disapply any enactment. Amendment No. 9 removes the ability of the Secretary of State to amend definitions of ““planning related provisions”” or ““relevant functions”” in relation to the HCA. In respect of Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, on Report the noble Baroness argued that Sections 14(6) and 14(8) were a step too far in relation to recognising the unusual circumstances of the HCA becoming a planning authority. She stated that applying enactments and modifying them to reflect particular circumstances might be acceptable, but that disapplying them was of a different order and therefore excessive, and that any consequential amendments should be made by the appropriate primary legislative vehicle. On reflection, we think that making these amendments will be compatible with our overall premise that the HCA as a planning authority should not be especially advantaged or disadvantaged when exercising the role, so I am happy to bring them forward, and consider that they are proportionate. As regards the third issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether sufficient parliamentary scrutiny would be afforded to any designation order by the negative resolution procedure. As noble Lords know, Clauses 13 and 14 in this Bill were initially modelled on the similar provisions in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act. Section 170 of that Act stated that a designation order, "““shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament””." Because of those origins, and in the interests of consistency, we felt it was appropriate that the same parliamentary procedure should be used to make any designation orders under the powers in this Bill. However, having thought about the exceptional nature of the case if there were to be a designation order, I believe she is right that we should justify each order on those rare occasions that we make them. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 16 and 19 require any order to be made by the affirmative procedure. On the fourth issue, in Amendment No. 18 we have also sought to prevent any designation order from being treated as a hybrid instrument. The potential for hybridity arises from the fact that designating an area and conferring planning functions on the HCA, although of general interest, would have the potential to affect the interests of specific individuals and organisations. If a designation order were to be subject to the hybrid procedure, this could add significant delay to any designation. It is, for example, possible to petition against hybrid instruments. Accepted petitions are considered by a Select Committee. We did not want to make that additional complication. We also thought that delays would be unwarranted because we made explicit and extensive changes to the consultation procedures. Those requirements are now in the Bill. We hope that we have dealt with that. Finally, on Amendment No. 21, the noble Baroness spotted that this important area had not been previously covered in our legislation. It was always our intention that the HCA, when exercising functions conferred in a designation order, would be under the same requirements as any local planning authority in giving access to papers and meetings. Yet that was not provided, hence the amendment. This means that, in the event of an HCA acting as a local planning authority, its meetings would be open to the public, in the same way as for the local planning authority normally. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel she has made a significant difference to the Bill in these respects. I am pleased to move these amendments and think they improve the Bill. I beg to move.