Clause
164
Charging
authorities
Mr.
Betts:
I beg to move amendment No. 437, in
clause 164, page 93, line 12, leave
out ‘which authority’ and insert
‘that the local planning authority
(within the meaning of Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990)’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following: Government amendment No.
537
Amendment No. 592,
in clause 164, page 93, leave out lines 15
to 18.
Amendment No.
37, in clause 164, page 93, line 17, leave out from
‘London’ to end of line
18.
Amendment No. 438,
in clause 164, page 93, line 19, leave out subsection
(3).
Mr.
Betts:
I will not detain the Committee
too long, as this is a point of clarification to ensure that the
authority that can collect the levy is the planning authority. That is
useful with regard to any symmetry that we need to develop between the
LDF process and the CIL, notwithstanding the comments that the Minister
has just made about the consultation that is going on about how the two
relate to each other. However, there are also concerns within local
government and the Local Government Association that the primary body
must be the accountable and elected local planning authority for the
area. When Sir Simon Milton gave evidence to the Committee, he made the
point that local government in general was supportive of the
collaborative arrangements between local authorities when they would
come together to look at the infrastructure needs of a wider area,
typically a city region. I have been a long-term supporter of the
concept of city regions and welcome the approach that the Government
have adopted of allowing the development of city regions to come about
organically, with local authorities determining the best way forward
for that area on a voluntary and collective basis.
There is still concern that at
some point the Government might decide that a city region authority,
rather than a local planning authority, could have the power to decide
on and collect the levy, which would be against the spirit of city
regions developing by collaboration and collective agreement and could
lead to some imposed organisation funding itself through the
levy.
A further
concern is probably that, given a regional development
association’s new strategic planning powers, it might be
possible at some stage that the Government will consider it as an
authority that could collect, or even determine, the levy for its area.
My amendment seeks to specify absolutely and clearly that the authority
in question is the local planning authority——the local
elected body in the area. It should be responsible not merely for
planning policy, but also for the determination and collection of the
levy.
Mrs.
Lait:
Welcome back, Sir John. I have great sympathy with
the proposal of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. As he
succinctly put it at the end, we have always maintained that only
democratically accountable bodies that are capable of raising taxes
should be charging
bodies.
As we see from
the Government’s new clause, they are hoping that RDAs will take
over responsibility for planning as well as housing and they will need
to fund those responsibilities. The concern is that the RDA could
insist on a charge that it would levy as part of the community
infrastructure levy, but it would not be democratically accountable to
the people from whom it is raising the money or to whom things will be
done.
Amendment No.
592 would delete any body other than a local authority from the list of
charging authorities in the regulations, including the local planning
authority, which I think the Government try to define in Government
amendment No. 537. I will leave that to the Minister. The list goes on
to specify the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers, the Mayor of
London, and
“any other
authority with responsibility for town and country
planning.”
As
the RDAs are being given responsibility for planning under the
Government new clause, it leaves open the opportunity for them to
charge. It also leaves open that opportunity for the Mayor of London,
who, as we know, notoriously has control over the London Development
Agency on housing and planning under the Greater London Authority Act
2007, which we fought all the way through the Commons, will continue to
oppose and do so
here.
If I may speak
on behalf of hon. Members from Wales on this side of the Committee, I
do not think that in principle they would wish Welsh Ministers to have
control over local authority expenditure in Wales. Empowering the
Secretary of State is possibly the most dangerous of all, because it
ties in with our concern, which has not been allayed by the
Minister’s comment
that, as he was responsible for the Planning-gain Supplement
(Preparations) Act 2007, he can say that there is no way that it will
ever be invoked. My view would be that if it remains on the statute
book, it can be invoked. It concerns a wider audience than Opposition
Members that the possibility is, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Newbury said, hanging like the sword of Damocles over the development
industry. The last thing that we want is the Secretary of State being
able to get their hands on the community infrastructure levy and
dictate what it should be and to whom. Therefore, we strongly wish to
see that only local authorities should have the power to charge. That
is not to say that they cannot work at sub-regional level, or that they
cannot cross local authority boundaries, which more and more local
authorities are willing and wishing to do, so that they can develop in
a way that suits all their communities, but only the local authority
should be the charging body, and no other body should be able to levy
the charge.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady
and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe for raising this issue
because it will concern a lot of people, particularly with regard to
the regional development authorities. Does she think that local
authorities will have the power, if they are making the charge, to
spend it or to hand it over to other bodies? Earlier, I raised the
question of health facilities, which would be provided by the PCT or
the strategic health authority. The concern is that there would be a
desire in the community for a health facility, but the only people who
could charge the money would be the local authorities. Do they have the
power to hand over that
money?
Mrs.
Lait:
It is not for me to interpret the non-existent rules
and regulations for the community infrastructure levy or even the
guidance, sparse as it is. However, as I understand it more and more
local authorities are working closely with the health authorities, the
police and a range of other bodies to come to a coherent view on what
is required within their communities. That is certainly developing in
the outer-London suburbs and I hope that it is the same in Cornwall.
Provided that that situation remains robust, there is no reason why the
local authority cannot be the agreed charging authority on behalf of
all those who are looking towards the community infrastructure
developments.
That
situation would apply for a jointly agreed road. I will cite the
example of a road going from Bexhill to Hastings, which involves Rother
district council, Hastings borough council, East Sussex county council
and even the South East England Development Agency. The local county
council will build the road and will be tolling it. That is already
working on a property basis and there is no reason why it should not.
That should free up the sort of housing that the Minister wishes to
see.
On that basis,
when we get to it, I would like to press amendment No.
592.
Mr.
Curry:
I am still confused about who does what in all of
this. There is such a thing as a charging authority. In my
constituency, Harrogate council and Craven council are the charging
authorities, but there is
a whole raft of precepting authorities, of which the county council
accounts for the biggest chunk of the council tax bills. There are also
the police, fire services and flood defence agencies, so a string of
people have the right of precept. What will happen in practice? Even if
it is called by another name, will other authorities be able to precept
the levy?
Will the
levy be an accumulation of the needs of different authorities? After
all, if a housing estate is built in some parts of the world, issues
such as refuse collection will fall on one tier of local authority and
other issues, such as highways and schooling, will fall on a different
tier. Will that be worked out by an informal agreement, or is there
some mechanism by which costs will be apportioned to permit
precepting?
What will
be the role of organisations like development corporations? Just as a
detail, does the Olympic delivery body have the right to precept or
levy the charge? The biggest development in the country is probably the
Olympic development in the east end of London. I guess that Hackney is
the lead authority on
that.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me
this opportunity. It is the Mayor who precepts on behalf of the Olympic
development authority and, until we have a change of Mayor, the current
Mayor is threatening to precept the London boroughs to
infinity.
Hon.
Members:
And beyond!
Mr.
Curry:
That causes two reflections. The first is how glad
I am that my constituency is 250 miles north of London. The second is
that if the Conservative candidate were to win the mayoral election, it
would be regarded as a victory by both sides of the House. I would like
the Minister to clarify some of these matters. He says it is a
framework Bill, but it is difficult but it is difficult to understand
that until we know what is to happen inside it. The detail is
everything in this sort of legislation. In the case of a project that
makes calls upon infrastructure for which different bodies are
currently responsible, is there a precepting mechanism
for the allocation of that, or is it done by
collaboration? It sounds like a tedious, bureaucratic question, but
tedious bureaucracy lies at the heart of many of the things we have to
deal
with.
1.30
pm
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): I add
my voice to the note of concern raised by the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe and my right hon. and hon. Friends. According to
subsection (2), one of the potential charging authorities is the Welsh
Ministers. The Welsh Ministers are a very acquisitive bunch of people.
They are acquisitive both in terms of legislative competence—we
shall shortly debate potential framework powers to give them
legislative power in this area— and finance. The Local Transport
Bill, which is before Parliament, seeks to give them the right to
impose road charges on trunk roads in England and Wales. When I see the
Welsh Ministers are a potential charging authority, I immediately react
with alarm.
I am also concerned that the
clauses relating to the application of the proceeds of any levy are
very widely drawn. I am worried that a CIL charge, referable to a
project in my constituency of Clwyd, West, could find itself being
applied to a project in Cardiff, or even Cardiff, South and Penarth.
That is not the sort of result that I would be keen to see but it seems
to be a consequence of the very wide terms in which the application
powers in the clause are
drawn.
I seek
reassurance from the Minister that if the Welsh Ministers were indeed
to be the charging authority in respect of any CIL charged in Wales,
they would be obliged to apply the proceeds of that levy to the local
authority area in respect of which it is referable. The Minister said
this morning that this was an important power that the Government
intend to put in the hands of local planning authorities. I seek
reassurance that that power will remain with the relevant local
planning authority and not disappear into the coffers of Cardiff
bay.
John
Healey:
Perhaps we can start at the starting point. There
is wide recognition that the sort of infrastructure that we shall look
to this levy to help support and fund can often be outside the local
authority’s boundaries. That infrastructure can be just as
critical to the potential growth and prosperity as infrastructure
within those boundaries and in some cases can relate to the specific
development
site.
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): I
endorse entirely what my hon. Friend is saying. It makes the reference
to Cardiff, South and Penarth a few moments ago quite appropriate. The
impact on traffication and access to rail services as a result of the
development in the Sport City in Cardiff bay has serious implications
for the traffication in the Vale of Glamorgan council area. Indeed, one
of the strengths of the recent arrangements is that payments from the
Cardiff Bay development were applied to
it.
The
Chairman:
Order. First, this is a long intervention and,
secondly, it is going rather wide of our
discussion.
John
Healey:
I enjoy these detailed discussions in Committee,
which often come up with new, ground-breaking terms.
“Traffication”, which my right hon. Friend has just
introduced into our debate, is one that I will treasure and savour. I
may even find an opportunity to use it at a later stage if I can find
an appropriate way of doing so.
The starkest
example of the argument was made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes,
South-West (Dr. Starkey), the Chair of the Select Committee on
Communities and Local Government, which shadows the work of the
Department. On Second Reading, the hon. Lady pointed out the importance
of junction 13 on the M1 to Milton Keynes. As she said, the junction is
critical to the future success and growth of Milton Keynes, but it is
in a different local authority area, a different county and a different
region, hence the argument for having a system that is capable, in the
right circumstances
and in the right way, of delivering a portion of the levy that can
support such infrastructure. That is what the provisions in this part
of the Bill are designed to do, as our policy document, which was
published last week, set out
clearly.
Mrs.
Lait:
The Minister for Local Government and his fellow
Ministers regularly say that they want to devolve powers to local
authorities. If that junction on the M1 is so important, the local
authorities will be well aware of it. Why will the Minister not allow
the local authorities to come together across county boundaries and
artificial regional boundaries to decide themselves what they want to
do and let them get on with it? Why does he not trust
them?
John
Healey:
Indeed we do. We are giving them the power
to choose to introduce a community infrastructure levy and the
potential to collaborate and pool some of the proceeds of it from their
areas. That is our starting point and the main basis of the Bill.
However, there may be circumstances in which that approach will not
work and in which there is a stronger case for having a community
infrastructure levy at a regional or sub-regional level, and the
amendments provide the means to do
so.
It
is precisely that tricky territory that we are discussing in detail at
the moment. We are consulting on how best to ensure that we have a
community infrastructure levy regime that could be used in such
circumstances to support the infrastructure. It is important to retain
the flexibility that is set out in clause 164(2) to allow that to be
done.
Amendment No.
592 seems designed simply to prevent the Mayor of London becoming a
charging authority and being able to impose a community infrastructure
levy. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady consulted the hon. Member for
Henley (Mr. Johnson) about removing that power, and I do not
know whether she is aware that, were she to do so, she would create a
£300 million black hole in the potential finances of the
Crossrail scheme. The consequences of the hon. Lady’s pressing
her amendment to a Division could be much wider than she might realise,
and it would rule out the possibility of an important element of
Crossrail funding.
The hon. Lady gave us the
lovely image of the Mayor of London taxing to infinity to support the
Olympics. With several of my hon. Friends, I chime, “to infinity
and beyond.” The hon. Lady may not have children as young as
mine and those of some of my hon. Friends and she may not know that
that was a reference to Buzz Lightyear. I thought at the time that
perhaps it had gone over her head, just like the jokes that other hon.
Members have shared about West
Ham.
Mrs.
Lait:
I understand the jokes, I just do not appreciate
them.
John
Healey:
Perhaps I had better move on before you rule me
out of order, Sir
John.
The
Chairman:
I would be grateful.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): West Ham always go
towards infinity, as we know, and occasionally get a
goal.
The
Minister referred to the Mayor of London’s plans and to
Crossrail. Nothing under our amendment would prevent the London
boroughs through which Crossrail will run from levying the community
infrastructure levy and entering into an agreement with Transport for
London or the Mayor as to any apportionment between them. That works
frequently under section 106 agreements. Does he accept that it is a
bit of a red herring to raise the loss of Crossrail? Will he also find
time to read the very interesting remarks made by the hon. Member for
Henley, in which he talks about his determination to work as a partner
of the boroughs, rather than in confrontation with them? That approach
would fit exactly with the proposition that we
make.
John
Healey:
I have not made a habit of studying the remarks of
the hon. Member for Henley, and I do not propose to do
so.
Amendments
Nos. 37 and 592 would prevent other bodies that have town and country
planning responsibilities from being empowered to charge the levy. That
would remove the flexibility that we think will be important to
encompass possible future changes to planning responsibilities. For
example, we are consulting with interested parties about whether the
IPC should be able to charge the levy for nationally significant
infrastructure projects. I stress that clause 164(2)(e) will not permit
the Secretary of State to make regulations empowering regional
development agencies to become CIL authorities, which the hon. Member
for Beckenham was very exercised about. That is because they currently
have no responsibilities for town and country
planning.
Mr.
Curry:
I thought that we had finished discussing the IPC a
little while ago. I had not realised that it might be a taxing
authority. The Minister has just told us that the IPC might raise the
levy. Should we not have been discussing that when dealing with the
IPC? It is a rather big
afterthought.
John
Healey:
It is not an afterthought at all. I am making the
case for the flexibility that we propose in the Bill for decisions that
we will take, after the required discussions and consultations, over
which authorities should be appropriate planning authorities. Those
will be set out in regulations and will be subject to the established
scrutiny and debate process through the affirmative resolution
procedure of this
House.
I want to deal
with the question of the regional development agencies and to reassure
the hon. Member for Beckenham as far as I can. Because of the
amendments that we propose to make to the Bill, it may be that in
future an RDA could take on some of the planning functions that are
currently carried out by regional assemblies. Subsection (2)(e)
gives a discretionary power for the Secretary of State—it is
discretionary rather than a requirement—to
make
“any other authority
with responsibility for town and country
planning”
a charging
authority. That could not apply to RDAs at present. It could apply to
them in a region where there is an agreement between an assembly and an
RDA for
the RDA to take on some of the planning functions, as we have proposed
in a new clause. We have no intention of empowering regional planning
bodies, whether in their current form or as regional development
agencies, as CIL charging
authorities. Amendment
No. 438 would also prevent the regulations from permitting or requiring
charging authorities to act jointly. We need the regulations to be able
to enable or require authorities to act as a charging authority as if
they were one body, without being challenged for acting under the
dictation of another, or for fettering their discretion. For instance,
if local planning authorities have developed joint core strategies, it
may make sense for them to be joint charging authorities for the
purpose of the CIL. I would have thought that the hon. Member for
Beckenham and her right hon. and hon. Friends would be looking to
encourage that sort of thing, rather than prevent
it.
1.45
pm
Finally,
amendment No. 438 appears to remove the possibility that the
regulations could allow a different approach to deciding on the
charging authority in different cases or circumstances. Given that not
all areas are the same, administratively, geographically, or
economically, a certain degree of flexibility seems reasonable and
justified. That is why Government amendment No. 537 enables regulations
to empower certain local authorities that are not local planning
authorities to charge the community infrastructure levy. In that
instance, we are responding to concerns that have been raised with us
by bodies that might come into that category, such as national park
authorities.
Dan
Rogerson:
I do not know the answer to the question that I
asked the hon. Member for Beckenham earlier on, but the Minister may be
able to provide it, as it is a crucial question for me. Under section
106 agreements currently, are the moneys collected by the local
authority, then handed over to other service providers, such as those
for health? That is only an example; there may be other key areas that
it wishes to fund. Or are those side agreements brokered as part of the
section 106 process by the local
authority?
If it is
felt necessary to set down in the Bill exactly which authorities can
have a call on that money, and if some authorities that are not
planning authorities, such as primary care trusts, are not specified,
does the local authority have the power to hand money over to them as
opposed to brokering an agreement whereby the developer pays the money
straight to the PCT? I appreciate that that may be a technical
question. Health facilities are mentioned in the document that has been
published so far, so I am assuming that local authorities are able to
do that. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that that was
the case.
John
Healey:
That is a different question, which is connected
not with the provisions of the Bill but with the operation of section
106 agreements. I understand that local authorities do have the scope
to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will check that matter out and,
if I need to, I will contact him further about
it.
Mr.
Betts:
I shall raise two matters. My hon. Friend has
answered the question about the RDA directly, which I am pleased
about.
On
the matter of the sub-regional arrangements, along with the LGA, my
feeling is that charging authorities should come together as a planning
authority collectively and voluntarily to provide appropriate
arrangements. I think that I heard my hon. Friend correctly when he
said that, essentially, the powers in amendment No. 164 are
discretionary for the Secretary of State, and that there will be
ongoing discussions with the LGA and other interested parties to find
the most appropriate way to achieve those objectives. On the basis of
that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 537,
in clause 164, page 93, line 14, at end
insert—
‘(aa) a county
council, a county borough council, a district council, a London borough
council, a metropolitan district council, the Common Council of the
City of London or the Council of the Isles of
Scilly,’.—[Mr.
Healey.]
Amendment
proposed: No. 592, in clause 164, page 93, leave out lines
15 to 18.—[Mrs. Lait.]
Question put, That the
amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
19
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 164, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
