Mr.
Raynsford: I shall be brief, but I shall disappoint the
right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden by saying that I hope that
the Minister will not accept the new clause, which is misconceived and
inappropriate. I
shall not talk about the individual circumstances in the right hon.
Gentleman’s constituency, and I have no reason to dispute his
concern about them, but I note the tone of hostility to housing
development that one has grown accustomed to hearing from many
Conservative quarters. I reflect only on the fact that we have a
serious housing shortage and that if we are not serious about providing
new housing to meet people’s needs, we will continue to face
serious problems of homelessness and people living in squalid
conditions, which is not acceptable in a modern society.
I object to
the new clause because it is prescriptive and because it would prohibit
the very co-operation between local authorities that the right hon.
Gentleman says he wants to encourage. It is clearly inappropriate to
prevent one local authority, with the agreement of another, from doing
a housing development that crosses
the border between the two. I represent a constituency in a fairly
densely occupied urban area where we have housing developments that
cross borders. Indeed, people are sometimes confused as to whether they
are renting from Lewisham or Greenwich council. It would be absurd to
say that there could not be an agreement whereby a development done by
one of those councils impinged in some way on the other’s
area. I am also
conscious of the efforts that have been made to help people to move to
other areas through new towns and other provision in seaside locations
to which elderly people can retire. Prohibiting such provision would be
completely inappropriate. Of course, we want
co-operation.
Mr.
Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. If
he will support my new clause now, I will support further modification
on Report saying, “Except by agreement of the councils
concerned.”
Mr.
Raynsford: If the right hon. Gentleman tables such an
amendment on Report, I will consider it a lot more sympathetically, but
I could not possibly support the new clause now because I regard it as
inappropriate for the reasons I have
explained.
Dan
Rogerson: I have a great deal of sympathy for what the
right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden says about his
constituents. They must be mystified that such a planning process can
be under way for the area where they live, and that decisions are being
taken over well-established borders. That is a real problem. I accept
the point that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made,
because, as we have discussed, local authorities should be able to come
together and present solutions, so perhaps the measure is not quite
right. We are certainly sympathetic to the views expressed by the right
hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, and I am sure that his
constituents would expect better from the planning
process. I
spent several years living in the borough of Bedford—not quite
Luton—and my wife taught very close to Hitchin in a place called
Stotfold, just over the border in Bedfordshire. I know the area quite
well and I am sure that residents have more in common than the right
hon. Gentleman implied, even in Hertfordshire. I am sure, too, that
they get on far better than was suggested. Issues such as this do not
help the process, so if we can resolve it in some way, all to the
good. 3.30
pm
Ms
Winterton: I want to start by saying that it is difficult
to comment on the proposals that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and
Harpenden referred to, because I understand that the respective local
authorities are still at the stage of making proposals that have yet to
be tested by inspectors. I support all the comments made by my right
hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and I want to
reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, as my right hon. Friend the
Member for Wentworth said on Second Reading, it is not the loophole
that he talks about.
Local
authorities have no powers to require another local authority to
accommodate housing numbers that have been allocated to them. As I have
said, our policy is that local authorities should accommodate the level
of housing identified for their area in the regional strategy. We
support councils working together, even to the extent of preparing
joint plans and initiatives, so that they decide between them how best
to accommodate their respective housing needs across a sub-regional
area. But they cannot simply require another local authority to
accommodate the numbers of houses that have been allocated to them.
Where local authorities disagree, there is a role for an independent
inspector to make a decision on their proposals, based on the evidence
available and policy set out in the regional strategy and by the
Government. The proposed new clause is unnecessary and I urge the right
hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr.
Lilley: The point is not that I am saying one council can
“require” another. Councils can make an
application—they should not be allowed to—for planning
and that will then have their endorsement when it goes to an inspector.
What I would like is an assurance that if they did go ahead with any
such proposal, and it was granted, the houses that they built in
another district area would not count towards their target, which has
been set for their area. The Minister did not make that
clear.
Ms
Winterton: As I have said, the point of the amendment
would, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich
said, prevent authorities joining together, but they cannot simply
require another authority to build in their area. I suggest I look at
the record relating to the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked
and I will write to him to clarify the
position.
Mr.
Lilley: Can I not bring it back on Report
now?
The
Chairman: Voting on a new clause and an amendment in
Committee does not prevent the same clause or amendment being re-tabled
on Report. But when Mr. Speaker selects amendments on
Report, the amount of time given to the clause or the amendment in
Committee will be taken into account. For example, if the Committee had
had quite a substantial debate on an amendment or a new clause, that
would be taken into account by Mr. Speaker, who might judge
that sufficient debate had been had on that particular section of the
Bill. Voting on it now is not an absolute bar to raising the new clause
on Report, but it may be advantageous not to vote now as it could allow
more time for it on Report. It is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman.
That is not particularly good guidance, but this is an awkward
situation.
Mr.
Lilley: It is extremely valuable guidance. After
25 years in the House, it is the first time that I have proposed a new
clause in Committee, other than a Government new clause. I shall
therefore follow your advice, Mr. Illsley, and not press the
new clause to a vote. I shall table a similar clause on Report, but one
that meets the objections that have been expressed today. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
clause. Clause,
by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
20Local
freedoms ‘(1) The Local
Government Act 1972 (c. 70) is amended as
follows. (2) In section 248
(freemen and inhabitants of existing boroughs), after subsection (1)
there is
inserted— “(1A)
Where the son of a freeman of a city or town may claim to be admitted
as a freeman of that place, the daughter of a freeman may likewise
claim to be so admitted. (1B)
The son or daughter of a freeman of a city or town shall be admitted as
a freeman whether born before or after the admission, as a freeman, of
his or her freeman parent and wherever he or she was
born. (1C) In subsections (1A)
and (1B) “freeman” excludes a freeman of the City of
London.”’.—(Dan
Rogerson.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The
new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne,
Central (Jim Cousins), who is not a member of the Committee. I was
contacted this morning by Newcastle city council and told that
councillors wished to raise a crucial question by way of this new
clause. Current legal provisions allow for certain rights to be passed
on to male children but not female children. The new clause also draws
attention to the fact that it matters whether those children were born
prior to someone becoming a freeman or after. The council says that
those are crucial questions of equality. I am happy to raise them
today, as this may be the only opportunity to do so in the foreseeable
future.
Something in
the new clause struck me as interesting. I am not familiar with such
arrangements, not having spent a great deal of my life in cities, but
these rights seem to be hereditary. I am used to things such as the
honorary freedom of a borough, which is usually given to regiments or
RAF squadrons and certain notable individuals who have made a big
contribution to the community. We spoke about honorary positions
earlier, but did not dwell on them. We passed over the
matter.
I am keen to
discover why those offices are hereditary, as society seems to have
moved away from such things. Indeed, I hope that we will soon move away
from that in the other place. I want to know what the law is, and why
it might be a problem in places such as Newcastle. I note that the hon.
Member in whose name the new clause is tabled is a Newcastle
Member.
The
Chairman: Before I call the Minister, I shall give a
little background on why the new clause appears where it
does.
I understand
that Newcastle city council wanted this matter to be debated, and
approached the Member of Parliament in whose name the new clause was
tabled. However, it was too late to be considered as an amendment to
clause 27, which would have been appropriate. In order to have the
matter debated, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim
Cousins) tabled it as a new clause. The advice that I gave to the right
hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden applies here as well. I ask the
Committee to tread carefully in case the hon. Gentleman wishes to table
the same amendment on Report, so that he can have the opportunity to
speak on behalf of his constituency.
Ms
Rosie Winterton: I very much hope that the hon. Member for
North Cornwall welcomes clause 27, which was introduced in the other
place by Lord Graham. In our view, it meets the aims of the new clause
in a more sustainable way. I shall give a bit of background, by way of
diversion. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall has any other
questions, he can write to
me.
Dan
Rogerson: If we can return to this matter on Report, and
if the Minister is keen to explore it in the future, we could
correspond, rather than further delay the
Committee.
Ms
Winterton: As I said, I understand that the new
clause’s aims were met by clause 27, so perhaps the hon.
Gentleman—
The
Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the debate,
but I want to make it clear that it will not be within my gift to
decide what is selected on Report. I would not want to curtail or
stifle debate here, if Members wish to debate the new
clause.
Ms
Winterton: Perhaps a discussion between the hon. Member
for North Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon
Tyne, Central would be helpful, because I am advised that clause 27
meets many of the new clause’s aims
and—crucially—in a more sustainable way. I know that he
likes that
word.
Dan
Rogerson: On the basis of that consultation with other
hon. Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new
clause. Clause,
by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
21Conditional
payment provisions: insolvency of a third party
payer ‘In the Housing Grants,
Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 113 prohibition of
conditional payment provisions, omit the
following— “(a)
in subsection (1) ‘unless that third person, or any other person
payment by whom is under the contract (directly or indirectly) a
condition of payment by that third person, is insolvent’,
and (b) subsection (2),
and (c) subsection (3),
and (d) subsection (4),
and (e) subsection
(5)”.’.—(Dan
Rogerson.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. Again,
I shall not detain the Committee for too long. The hon. Member for
Peterborough raised the issues covered by new clause 22, which would
protect those at the end of the chain who carry out work on a
construction project. It would try to prevent contractors higher up the
money-supply chain from withholding payment because of an insolvency
somewhere along that chain—in particular, at the top of it. As
he has raised this issue already, I shall merely say that that problem
remains to be resolved.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: We return to the point raised by the hon.
Member for Peterborough. The new clause would protect firms from the
effects of insolvency elsewhere in the supply chain, which is, of
course, a laudable aim. However, we must ensure that, when trying to
protect some businesses, we do not disadvantage others. That would be
the case in the construction industry as in any other. Of course, the
construction industry is facing difficulties in the economic downturn,
but so are other sectors.
The new
clause suggests that we delete the insolvency exception to the
prohibition of the “pay when paid” clauses. The
construction industry is unique in that such clauses are prohibited by
statute, and that exception is in place for a good reason. It continues
to allow construction firms the same protection from the risks of an
insolvency as businesses in other industries. It is important to
maintain that level playing field. We need to be careful that we do not
create a situation for construction insolvencies different from that
for other businesses. Preventing construction firms from using
“pay when paid” clauses in insolvency situations would do
that.
We have
consulted the industry extensively on whether a better solution could
be found than the compromise one in the Housing Grants, Construction
and Regeneration Act 1996—a solution that would deliver a fairer
result for all—but no clear evidence was found that the removal
of the current insolvency exception would achieve that. In those
circumstances, the sensible option is to maintain the status quo. I
therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new
clause. 3.45
pm
| 
