| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must confess that I am still confused about what happened on charities. Was the Minister’s amendment agreed? Is she going to alter it? It looks that way, but some of us got left behind on that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I may be able to help on this. I believe the position is that the noble Baroness may bring forward some amendments, but if she does not bring any forward it would be in the spirit of what has just happened that there could be Third Reading amendments. That is what I believe to be the case.
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, as I have made clear, I have moved my amendment. I have listened to what noble Lords have said and I am going to reflect on what has been said and try to do what I can before Third Reading.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. We now move on to a different subject and I move Amendment No. 136D. Clause 203(6)(f) rightly provides for the regulations on an amount of CIL to allow for different rates, including a nil rate or reductions. There is a strong case for buildings which are replacements for existing buildings, and which do not make any significant fresh call on local infrastructure, to be either free of CIL or subject to a low rate. Where, for example, a farm upgrades a grain store to comply with farm assurance or hygiene standards, or a livestock farmer replaces a building housing livestock with one incorporating higher welfare standards, it would be unfair for these to attract CIL.
12 Nov 2008 : Column 775
Amendment No. 136D acts as a qualification to the subsection by specifically providing for such an approach to be applicable to renewal or replacement buildings. It is appreciated that judgments will need to be made about what is a replacement building and what constitutes significant costs, but surely it is desirable to establish the principle that such buildings should in general not be heavily penalised under CIL. Detailed delivery of this principle can follow in the regulations.
There are other points that I would like to raise with the Minister. There is also the question of cumulative development. Many commercially successful businesses will, over time, extend existing buildings or create new buildings. How does the Minister propose to treat such development for CIL purposes? Does she agree that it would be unreasonable for a business that paid CIL when it first developed a building to be hit again for a second levy payment sometime later if the expansion is on a modest scale? How will CIL distinguish between significant developments which clearly make a fresh call on local infrastructure and small businesses where the infrastructure requirement is small to negligible? I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, Amendment No. 136D seeks a power for regulations either to provide for or to require the provision of differential CIL rates for developments which renew or replace existing buildings, where those redevelopers do not incur any significant costs to provide infrastructure to support them. I understand the noble Earl’s point and we have had discussions with the CBI on similar issues. I am afraid the amendment would be unworkable and I should explain that it is at odds with the approach to CIL, so I have to explain my reasoning.
The amendment includes a test whereby redevelopments would be subject to a differential CIL rate only if it could be shown that they had not imposed a significant infrastructure cost. I understand what is behind the noble Earl’s amendment, but my concern is that charging authorities would, in practice, find it impossible to define and measure a test of significant infrastructure costs for redevelopments in their area without incurring significant administrative costs and invoking prolonged legal debates. We have already had reference to the fun that the lawyers will possibly have with CIL. Should significant infrastructure costs be defined relative to, for example, the costs of other developments or redevelopments in an area, or what? Without the significant cost test, which I genuinely believe is unworkable, the amendment cannot in itself be justified.
Part of the problem is that redevelopments may well impose greater infrastructure costs than a new development. For example, an old house with some land can be replaced by a block of flats. That means many more people living on the same piece of land, many of them with cars, with many more needs for infrastructure support.
More important still, this amendment is also inconsistent with the rationale that underpins CIL. It is a generalised charge; we have gone over this time and again. It is there to enable local authorities to fund the infrastructure needed to support the development of a local area. Unlike planning obligations under
12 Nov 2008 : Column 776
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the point that the Minister made about replacing a house with a block of flats. However, I do not think she made any attempt to answer the points that I made with regard to agricultural buildings. When a farmer is forced to replace a building not through reasons of his own but to meet new hygiene or quality assurance standards, in order to stay in business he will do so, probably making no difference at all to the infrastructure. Why should that person be subject to a CIL charge?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I have said, CIL is a generalised charge. It is not done building by building or instance by instance. Maybe I am not making myself clear. I had better read tomorrow morning what the noble Earl has said and think about it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, given what the Minister has said, I am not going to press this. I wanted to, because it is so important. I ask her to meet me at an early stage to go through this. It is very important for rural industry. At the moment she is delivering a body blow to farmers. The way that she has expressed this is totally contrary to everything she said about the general development order and small buildings. If farmers and those in the land management business are going to be faced with CILs like this, she is going to help destroy an industry.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I talked earlier today about the way the GPDO will take care of most of these instances. I thought the noble Earl was raising a different point. I am happy to meet him and talk about this, and I hope I can give him satisfaction.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Clause 204 [Charging schedule: examination]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 137A:
137A: Clause 204, page 118, line 30, at end insert—
“(9A) CIL regulations may make provision for examiners to reconsider their decisions with a view to correcting errors (before or after the approval of a charging schedule).”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Clause 205 [Charging schedule: approval]:
12 Nov 2008 : Column 777
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 138A:
138A: Clause 205, page 118, line 40, at end insert—
“(4) CIL regulations may make provision for the correction of errors in a charging schedule after approval.”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Clause 206 [Charging schedule: effect]:
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 140A:
140A: Clause 207, page 119, line 27, leave out “The regulations” and insert “Regulations under this section or section (Liability) (5)(d)(ii)”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 140B:
140B: Clause 207, page 119, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant shall be the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and not the person appointed under subsection (1).”
[Amendment No. 140C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 140B, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 140B agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 141A to 142BA not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 142C:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 143ZA not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 143A:
143A: Clause 209, page 121, line 12, at end insert “; and section 208(7)(a) and (c) apply to a collecting authority in respect of collection as to a charging authority.”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 144A to 144D:
144A: Clause 210, page 121, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulations may make provision about the consequences of failure to assume liability, to give a notice or to comply with another procedure under CIL regulations in connection with CIL.”
144C: Clause 210, page 121, line 41, at end insert—
“(l) for enforcement in the case of death or insolvency of a person liable for CIL.”
144D: Clause 210, page 121, line 41, at end insert—
12 Nov 2008 : Column 778
“(3A) CIL regulations may include provision (whether or not in the context of late payment or failure to pay) about registration or notification of actual or potential liability to CIL; and the regulations may include provision—
(a) for the creation of local land charges;
(b) for the registration of local land charges;
(c) for enforcement of local land charges (including, in particular, for enforcement—
(i) against successive owners, and
(ii) by way of sale or other disposal with consent of a court);
(d) for making entries in statutory registers;
(e) for the cancellation of charges and entries.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 145A to 145D:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Clause 212 [Community Infrastructure Levy: procedure]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 146A to 146C:
146A: Clause 212, page 123, line 35, at end insert—
“(s) procedures to be followed in connection with actual or potential liability for CIL.”
146B: Clause 212, page 123, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) CIL regulations may make provision about the procedure to be followed in respect of an exemption from CIL or a reduction of CIL; in particular, the regulations may include provision—
(a) about the procedure for determining whether any conditions are satisfied;
(b) requiring a charging authority or other person to notify specified persons of any exemption or reduction;
(c) requiring a charging authority or other person to keep a record of any exemption or reduction.”
146C: Clause 212, page 123, line 38, at end insert—
“(3A) A power in this Part to make provision about publishing something includes a power to make provision about making it available for inspection.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Clause 213 [Secretary of State]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 147A:
147A: Clause 213, page 123, line 43, after first “authority” insert “(including an examiner appointed under section 204)”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Clause 214 [CIL regulations: general]:
12 Nov 2008 : Column 779
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B:
148A: Clause 214, page 124, line 7, after “provide” insert “, or allow a charging schedule to provide,”
148B: Clause 214, page 124, line 8, after “confer” insert “, or allow a charging schedule to confer,”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 149A:
149A: Clause 214, page 124, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) An order under section 210(10) or 217(2)—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) may include provision of a kind permitted by subsection (1)(a), (b) or (f) above, but may not amend an Act of Parliament in reliance on subsection (1)(f).
(4) An order under section 210(10) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) An order under section 217(2) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Clause 215 [Relationship with other powers]:
[Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
Clause 216 [Community Infrastructure Levy: amendments]:
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 217 [Community Infrastructure Levy: repeals]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 153A:
153A: Clause 217, page 125, line 26, at end insert—
“(2) The Treasury may by order repeal the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007 (c. 2).”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 154 and 154A not moved.]
Clause 224 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 156:
156: Clause 227, page 132, line 1, leave out from ““land”” to “and” in line 2 and insert “includes buildings and monuments, and land covered with water,”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |