 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Planning Bill |
Planning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 31 January 2008(Afternoon)[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]Planning BillClause 163The
levy
Question
proposed [this day], That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
1
pm
Question
again
proposed.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I welcome you back to the
Chair, Sir John. I am sure that the Minister recalls exactly what I was
saying when I had to call a halt to my remarks this morning. To recap
briefly, I am in favour of the levy in principle, but we need to know
far more about how it will work and how it will be negotiated. The
document that was handed to us does not fill in a great deal of detail.
I appreciate that there is a lot of negotiation and consultation to
come, but there is bound to be some dissatisfaction, given that the
provision will not be amendable and will instead be subject to the
affirmative resolution procedures for secondary legislation.
We must
ensure that we are not jeopardising other calls on planning gain, for
want of a better phrase. We will return to that issue in our debates on
a later clause. I hope that the threat to impose a planning gain
supplement will recede into the background as we move towards a
satisfactory principle on which the levy could work. We had a
discussion earlier, prompted by the right hon. Member for Skipton and
Ripon, on whether it is a hypothecated tax. If one wanted to go
further, one could call it a tithe—the taking of a percentage of
the increase from which developers benefit.
The key to this issue is that
we need more detail on the levy. We have the opportunity to debate what
little detail there is in subsequent clauses, and I look forward to
doing so. I hope that the process by which the levy is framed will be
an open one and that everyone will have an opportunity to comment, so
that what comes out the other end is workable and does not have
unfortunate consequences regarding communities’ aspirations for
their future development.
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
Welcome back
to the Chair, Sir John. You missed the wide-ranging debate that we had
this morning, before we even got to the clause stand part debate,
despite Mr. Illsley’s best intentions to keep us in
order. Let me deal with the main points that have arisen. I am grateful
to the hon. Member for Beckenham for setting out clearly the
Conservative party’s position on community infrastructure. The
hon. Member for North
Cornwall made it clear that the Liberal Democrats support the provision
in principle, and I welcome that. Both hon. Members added their general
support to the wide range of bodies that are interested in and support
a levy, while being anxious that we should get its design and
implementation right. I shall return to that point, because it is the
reason why we are tackling the legislation, implementation and
introduction of the levy as we
are.
The hon. Member
for North Cornwall stressed the importance of revenue from the levy
being additional. We have consistently stressed the importance of that
approach, which reflects the Government’s intentions. He also
stressed the importance of sub-regions and referred to his experience
in Cornwall. He is right to draw the Committee’s attention to
that point, which we will come to.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe queried why we were making the power one that
local planning authorities can, rather than should, choose to take
advantage of. He also expressed concern about infrastructure planning.
It has been established as Government policy, captured first in PPG12
and now in the draft PPS12, that local planning authorities should look
systematically at their infrastructure needs. Whatever the extent of
the formal incorporation of a community infrastructure levy process in
the local development plan framework, it provides a good basis
for ensuring that the preparation process and
introduction in those areas that want to take advantage of the powers
are
right.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab):
I thank my hon. Friend for dealing with that issue.
What I was trying to get at was that sometimes, local authorities have
not used section 106 powers not because of a definite decision, but
because they do not get around to it or have not seen its importance,
and have not done what their neighbours have often done effectively. My
hon. Friend is right in saying that a local authority may choose not to
use CIL powers, but will it have to go through a local development
framework process of considering whether those powers would be
appropriate in view of the development needs of the area, and come to a
view that they would not be—if that is the decision that they
eventually come to—in a positive way and through a proper
process?
John
Healey:
There will be a proper process for considering the
introduction and appropriate charging level of a CIL. Our starting
point and intention for when that seems possible and appropriate is to
link it into the local development planning process. We are discussing
that in detail with the interest groups, because the local development
planning process might not be quite flexible or adaptable enough if it
were the only route for a CIL. I shall come to that in a moment, and in
considering further
amendments.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con):
There might be a commercial development in part of a
city where a supplementary business rate had been agreed. To be
effective, there is likely to be a 10-year programme to raise funds for
the sort of projects in mind, which are also infrastructure projects.
Would such a new development
automatically become eligible for the supplementary business rate, its
not having existed, perhaps, when the decision was
taken?
John
Healey:
The right hon. Gentleman illustrates why we are
approaching the levy’s development as we are. Within the
framework set out in the Bill, there will be much detailed examination
of how it might work in practice, and we must determine what the
regulatory framework should be. That is one question that might be
appropriate for that part of the
process.
During
our discussion this morning, the hon. Member for Beckenham said that
the Government seem to be—she may even have said that the
Government are—setting up the community infrastructure levy to
fail so that they can introduce the planning gain supplement. That is
completely ridiculous. Having led the Treasury’s work on the
planning gain supplement for at least two years, I am conscious of the
concept’s strengths and weaknesses, and of the concerns that
exist about that
proposal.
I am
strongly of the view that the proposal to develop a community
infrastructure levy, as we are doing in the Bill, is a better approach.
It certainly has sufficiently widespread support to mean that we have a
good chance, if we get the details right, of introducing a measure that
could make a significant contribution to meeting the costs of some of
the infrastructure that we will need in almost all our local areas in
the coming years to support housing and economic growth and, therefore,
the prospects and prosperity of local
people.
Mrs.
Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): I am grateful for that
assurance. Does it mean that, in the interest of speedily getting
through the remaining stages of the Bill, the Minister will accept all
our amendments that refer to land values, and particularly the
amendment that asks for repeal of the Planning-gain Supplement
(Preparations) Act 2007? If he will accept the spirit of those
amendments, I will happily not move them.
John
Healey:
My starting point with all amendments tabled by
the hon. Lady, and her arguments, is not necessarily to say no but to
see whether they have any merit. Without wanting to raise expectations
or hopes too high, the answer is, “Wait and
see”—on some of them, at
least.
Mr.
Curry:
The Minister mentioned housing growth. I believe
that I am right in saying that if there were a development of market
housing and social housing, the old section 106 agreement would
continue to exist in respect of the social housing. After all, that is
what has delivered more than 50 per cent. of social housing in this
country over the past few years. Presumably, the community
infrastructure levy would apply to market housing, and section 106
would apply to social housing, but no properties would be subject to a
double imposition. Is that the
case?
John
Healey:
Not precisely. We will get on to
social housing and the interplay between section 106 agreements and
what may be appropriate and allowable infrastructure to be funded
through a community infrastructure levy. Suffice it to say that our
intention and policy aim is to continue to have sufficient levels of
affordable housing, principally negotiated through section 106
agreements. However, it seems sensible to have a provision—we
will
discuss it on a later amendment—such that, if we saw instead a
drop-off in the levels of investment and affordable social housing that
we need in almost every part of the country, we could at least make the
contribution to the funding of affordable housing an allowable element
for expenditure that may come from the levy
revenues.
The point
that I was making to the hon. Member for Beckenham was that this is not
the planning gain supplement by stealth. The community infrastructure
levy is different in principle, in design and in the purposes for which
it is being
raised.
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Further
to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, I believe that
the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the Government’s
menacing words about framework legislation for the planning gain
supplement remaining on the statute book and being used at some future
date. If they are doing something so radically different, what is the
point of keeping that measure in the background like a sword of
Damocles?
John
Healey:
We are at risk of pre-empting a debate that we
will certainly have on one of the hon. Lady’s amendments, but
just so the hon. Gentleman is clear, the legislation for planning gain
supplement that is on the statute book is not framework legislation. It
would not and could not allow the planning gain supplement to be
introduced. It is narrowly drawn paving legislation intended
specifically to allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and
other specified authorities the power to spend money in preparation for
a possible planning gain
supplement.
That
is the provision that is on the statute book. It has not been used, no
expenditure has been made under its provisions, and when I was the
Minister responsible for the Bill in question, I gave an undertaking
that such things would not happen unless a policy decision was taken to
go ahead with a planning gain supplement. I hope that that is helpful.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about its being a framework Bill, rather
as one might describe this legislation as being a framework Bill for a
community infrastructure levy, but, clearly, it is completely
different.
The
basis on which we proceed with the proposal for a levy is that the
industry has stated that it accepts the case and that it is willing to
make additional contributions for infrastructure. It supports the levy,
which builds, as many urged us to do, on the existing practice through
planning obligations under section 106
agreements.
The
question is how best to do that; that is the nature of the discussion
that we are having about the Bill’s provisions. Industry has
strongly backed that, as members of the Committee heard in the evidence
sessions. The framework in the Bill is designed to give us the powers
to introduce a levy, the detail and design of which, we propose and
have always proposed, will be set out in regulations. The hon. Member
for Beckenham described that as cavalier, but I would say that, on the
contrary, it is cautious and consultative. The British Property
Federation and the Home Builders Federation jointly said that they
welcomed the fact that the CIL clauses in the Bill are enabling
clauses, because that will provide the necessary flexibility to
implement the levy through regulations and guidance as its full details
are
developed.
1.15
pm
That is
precisely what we are doing and what we intend to do, and I want to
make it clear to the Committee that regulations to introduce a levy
under the provisions in the Bill will be subject, as clause 171 states,
to affirmative resolution. Therefore, the House will have the chance to
debate and scrutinise the proposals we intend to lay later, and those
regulations will be laid only after detailed, continuing discussions
with those with a direct interest and others and consultation on the
drafts of the
regulations.
Finally,
with regard to timing, I say to the hon. Member for Beckenham, who
urges that the regulations should somehow be done and dusted and
available in draft by the time the Bill goes to the Lords, that we have
been consistent and clear from the start. I had hoped that publishing
the policy document on Thursday would have given her a chance to read
it over the weekend, as paragraph 83 of that document makes it clear
that we aim formally to consult on draft regulations this autumn with a
view to finalising them in spring 2009. Regulations will need to be
explicitly approved by the House of Commons before becoming law. I
commend the clause to the
Committee.
Question
put and agree
d
to.
Clause 163,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 1 February 2008 |