My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True and support the four amendments in this group.
The report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, published on 18 January, refers to Clause 1 being,
“a novel provision in the context of town and country planning”.
“Novel” might mean “new”, but it might also mean, “very different and therefore very important”; I think that it is meant to be the latter. It is novel and, as a consequence, it must be properly understood. A centralised form of front-line decision making is being introduced at the expense of localism, as the Select Committee has made clear. I do not find that good. In particular, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that there
would be no appeals system other than judicial review to a decision taken by the Planning Inspectorate. In the context of democratic control of decision making, simply to pass a decision without the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate is not right.
I was then particularly concerned by paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report, which is important and says:
“We have consistently expressed the view that executive assurances about how statutory powers will be exercised are no firm basis on which to legislate. Constitutionally speaking, they are no proper substitute for clarity in the statutory provision”.
The Select Committee concludes:
“In our view, the Government’s own policy intention of designation under clause 1 only in exceptional cases”—
as Ministers have been making clear—
“should be made clear on the face of the bill. The House may also wish to consider whether the criteria and procedures for making or revoking a designation should be set out in secondary legislation”.
I think I have concluded that in both cases they should and I very much hope that shortly we will hear confirmation that the Minister at least will look at this question again. The Government’s aim should be never to use their powers.
4.45 pm
In that context, and in the context of this amendment which deals with an 18-month period, perhaps I may further suggest how important it is for the Government to take clear account of the trajectory of an authority’s performance over the previous two years. If it was poor and is getting better, that should be born in mind. But that is not quite the same as, “It was pretty good and it is getting steadily worse”. Therefore, the four amendments in this group are important because they would give time for solutions to be found to those issues. Even if the trajectory is getting worse, it takes only about 18 months, or perhaps a bit less, for it to improve. Improvement can be delivered very quickly and peer-group support is a key element of doing that.
Finally, a consultation on this matter closed last Thursday. I, too, seek the Minister’s assurance that before Report there will be a conclusion to that consultation and that answers and explanations will be provided as to what everyone has said and what Ministers’ responses will be.