| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
“But what worries me most is that all the secondary legislation needed to implement all this will merely be subject to affirmative resolution in the Commons. We all know that it is virtually
23 Oct 2008 : Column 1340
That is a very powerful opinion from somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the system of parliamentary government in both Houses and we should treat it seriously. It is absurd that the Bill should allow the regulations to be debated only in the House of Commons, requiring only the approval of another place. It is not a tax—I criticised my noble friend earlier about that—but a charge. It is a charge which goes to local authorities; it does not go into the Consolidated Fund; and it is exactly like all the other charges that were listed in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I associate these Benches with the comments of the noble Lord; we entirely agree with him. Perhaps I may add one technical observation. What we have been discussing, even if it were a tax, is much broader than a financial provision. For that reason, I would support this House’s role.
The Earl of Caithness: I have put my name to the amendment. I was critical of the Minister at Second Reading and suggested that she was quite wrong to allow to come to this House a Bill containing a clause concerning a levy for which only the House of Commons would be allowed to discuss the regulations. Having ploughed through today’s proceedings, I am even more convinced that I was right in saying that the way in which this Bill has been presented is a disgrace. It quite contradicts Mr Healey, who said in the Commons that the Lords would be fully informed and,
- “have the maximum information possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning Bill Committee, 31/1/08; col. 632.]
The Bill as it stands is a quite deliberate attempt to stop this House debating the regulations and prevent us having the maximum information available. If that is how the Government wish to treat this House, let them firmly state that on the record.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: Lest it be thought that no one on this side shares the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I associate myself with them. I said at Second Reading that I thought that the levy was a tax. It was made clear by the Minister that it was not. When the question of Treasury involvement was raised today, it was made clear that that was not because it was a tax. The heart and guts of this are precisely in the regulations. It is deeply offensive for a framework Bill depending on regulations to be put before us when those regulations need a lot more work before they are brought forward. I say in a non-partisan way—I do not associate myself with some of the more emotive remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—that my noble friend the Minister would do a service to the Chamber to accept that a substantial case is being made. It is not the way for the Government to proceed and I hope that they will think again.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Those who have expressed views on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin are in complete agreement that it would be
23 Oct 2008 : Column 1341
Baroness Andrews: The amendment was moved in great seriousness and has found support all around the Committee. I will not reiterate the quotations of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, from the DPRRC. I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with his judgment about how this is best done.
The amendment goes further than the DPRRC’s report, which recognises that the Commons may claim privilege over some parts of the CIL clauses. This very important issue goes to the heart of the relationship between our House and the other place. I have considered this sensitive issue carefully, but we must also be mindful of the views of the other place, as indeed the DPRRC’s report indicates. I believe that the Speaker of the House of Commons will reach a view on whether financial privilege extends to amendments made by this House when the Bill is returned to the other place. The decision is for the Commons authorities. I cannot advise on what that decision will be. Our considered view is that this matter is covered by privilege.
I do not think that I can add anything else to the matter at the moment. The DPRRC report notes that the matter would be better left for the other place to resolve. The views of noble Lords are certainly on the record.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am deeply disappointed at the noble Baroness’s view. I had hoped that she might at least take the matter back and discuss it with her colleagues. She has missed the point. It is for the other House to claim privilege; it is not for this House to take a view on what that privilege is.
We have had a very long day. I have been on the Energy Bill too so we are quits on that. I am not sure that the Minister took the matter on board, so I will quote again from the Companion. It states:
“Each House of Parliament is guardian of its own privileges. It alone may invoke them. Until it does so the other House is free to act as it thinks fit”.
The Chamber is not full, but given that there is support on every side of it for this amendment, and that it was strongly spoken to at Second Reading, I hope that the noble Baroness would say that there were strong feelings in this House. I did not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, did when he said that the provision was offensive, but I have to say that I actually feel that myself.
When you think, as the Delegated Powers Committee said, that national insurance, council tax, business rates, business improvements and the climate change levy regulations are all approved by both Houses, it is, if I may say so, offensive that the Government have decided that the community infrastructure levy is to be the privilege of the House of Commons on its own.
23 Oct 2008 : Column 1342
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 208 [Relationship with other powers]:
[Amendments Nos. 444A and 444B not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 444C:
444C: After Clause 208, insert the following new Clause—
“Community Infrastructure Levy: amendments
(1) In section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Community Infrastructure Levy under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 is not a rate for the purposes of subsection (6).”
(2) In section 9 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 (c. 4) (the Navigation Committee)—
(a) in subsection (8), after “Subject” insert “to subsection (8A) and”;
(b) after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to functions under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy).”
(3) In section 71(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40) (contracting out: functions of local authorities) omit the word “and” at the end of paragraph (g) and after paragraph (h) insert “; and
(i) sections 203 and 204 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy: collection and enforcement).”
(4) In section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (delegation), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In relation to functions exercisable by the Mayor under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 (Community Infrastructure Levy) subsection (2) has effect with the omission of paragraphs (c) to (f).””
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 444D:
444D: After Clause 209, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 (c. 2)
The Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 (c. 2) is repealed.”
The noble Earl said: I can move the amendment briefly because the noble Baroness wrote my speech for me in speaking to Amendment No. 435A. She said that the Government were not going to reintroduce PGS, so why do we need the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 on the statute book any more? I beg to move.
6.45 pm
Baroness Andrews: That is one of the better speeches I have heard.
The amendment would provide for the repeal of PGS. The Prime Minister stated in July 2007 that the main planning-gain supplement Bill was provisional. If a better alternative were found, the Government
23 Oct 2008 : Column 1343
The PGS preparations Act 2007 is three sections long and cannot be used to introduce PGS. It does not set out the detailed policy, nature or operation of PGS. Its sole purpose is to allow certain authorities to spend money in order to prepare for the introduction of PGS—for example, to develop IT systems. In the event, no expenditure has been incurred in relation to PGS which would not have been permitted in the absence of the preparations Act. There is therefore no need to repeal the preparations Act, as it was a narrow preparations measure designed to ensure the regularity and probity of government expenditure in accordance with the usual government accounting rules. I hope that the noble Earl can withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: That is a dreadful response, with due respect to the Minister. Can she tell me how much money has been spent under the preparations Act? Why, if the Government are not going to proceed with it, do they need it on the statute book?
This is the Government at their most duplicitous. They would prefer a planning-gain supplement. I can see that in a few years’ time they will turn around and say that CIL is not working, so we need a planning-gain supplement. As we would still have the preparations Act on the statute book, they could use that to get on and start planning, introducing another bit of legislation. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister has a better answer for me now. Given her assurance that they are not going to introduce PGS, why does one still need the preparations Act on the statute book?
Baroness Andrews: As I explained—and I cannot explain it much more clearly—it is a small and technical piece of legislation, and there is no need to repeal it.
The Earl of Caithness: I am so tempted to call a Division now. I am very frustrated at the close of today’s business. Clearly, however, a Division would count the House out. That would not be conducive to the rest of business. For the time being, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would hope that the noble Baroness could, first, answer my question on how much has been spent and, secondly, write to me in slightly fuller detail about this. Otherwise we might have to come back to it.
Baroness Andrews: I am happy to write to the noble Earl and answer the question about costs. I would not be discourteous to him by any means.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
23 Oct 2008 : Column 1344
Clause 212 [Pre-commencement statements of policy, consultation etc.]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 445 to 447:
445: Clause 212, page 131, line 14, leave out “expressions relating to the Crown” and insert ““Crown land” and “the appropriate Crown authority””
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 212, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 214 [Service of notices: general]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 448:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 214, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 215 and 216 agreed to.
Clause 217 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 449 to 453:
449: Clause 217, page 135, line 16, leave out “This section applies” and insert “Subsections (2) and (3) apply”
450: Clause 217, page 135, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) a power conferred by paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 4;”
451: Clause 217, page 135, line 31, leave out from “containing” to end of line 32 and insert “—
(a) an order granting development consent;
(b) an order made by virtue of paragraph 1(7A) of Schedule 4;
(c) an order changing or revoking an order granting development consent;
(d) an order under section 14(3), (Intervention: other circumstances), 153(3), 154(5), 165(1), 196(5) or 212(3)(g);
(e) regulations under section 101(2)(c) or 102(2)(b).”
453: Clause 217, page 135, line 35, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under section 101(2)(c) or 102(2)(b) unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 217, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 218 and 219 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 454 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 455:
455: Clause 220, page 136, line 41, at end insert—
““gas transporter” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (see section 7(1) of that Act);”
23 Oct 2008 : Column 1345
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 220, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Application of Act to Scotland: modifications]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 455A and 456:
455A: Schedule 12, page 188, line 9, at end insert—
“ Section (Liability under existing regimes) applies as if—
(a) for paragraph (c), there were substituted—
“(c) section 10 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (compensation for damage resulting from exercise of statutory powers)”, and
(b) paragraph (d) were omitted.
Section (Compensation in case where no right to claim in nuisance) applies as if—
(a) in subsection (4), the reference to the Lands Tribunal were a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland,
(b) for subsections (5) and (6) there were substituted—
“(5) Section 6 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (which makes the construction of the railway subject to that Act and the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845) applies in relation to authorised works as it applies in relation to the construction of a railway.
(6) Any rule or principle applied to the construction of section 6 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 must be applied to the construction of subsection (3) of this section (with any necessary modifications).”, and
(c) in subsection (7)—
(i) the reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 were a reference to Part 1 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973, and
(ii) in paragraph (c), for “17” there were substituted “15”.”
456: Schedule 12, page 188, line 19, at end insert—
(a) in subsection (3)—
(i) for the words from “the”, where it first occurs, to “(c. 49)” there were substituted “subsections (5) to (9) of section 135 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8) (which relate to the execution and cost of certain works)”, and
(ii) the words from “section 276” to the end were omitted,
(b) in subsection (4), for “section 289” there were
23 Oct 2008 : Column 1346
(c) subsection (5) were omitted.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 222 and 223 agreed to.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 457:
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |