Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 435A: 435A: Clause 198, page 122, line 36, leave out ““with the consent of the Treasury”” The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 435A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 435C, 435D, 435E, 435F, 435G, 435J, 435K and 436. This is the first of a lot of large groups. I hope that we are able to discuss all the amendments. I dislike the groupings and I have said so, but I have been overruled in what I wanted to do to try to improve the debate and the structure of our proceedings. Today we move on to the worst part of the Bill; those in the department should hang their heads in shame for what they have done. Never have a Government been so savaged by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which took this part of the Bill apart in its very potent analysis. There is a huge lack of detail. It is very difficult to discuss a levy such as this when there is no detail. What has happened to the assurance given in another place? The Minister, Mr Healey, said, "““we aim formally to consult on draft regulations this autumn””.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 31/1/08; col. 599.]" Where are these draft regulations? Why have the Government not stood by what they said they would do? It makes our life extremely difficult, but perhaps the Government’s aim is not to have a proper debate on this part of the Bill. In that way, they can have the flexibility to amend provisions without consultation or debate in the House. Let us make it absolutely clear: this is not a levy; it is a tax. This is just a variation of development land tax. I can see the scenario in the department: ““We can’t call it development land tax. What are we going to call it?””. Someone came up with the bright idea of the community infrastructure levy and was told, ““We can’t call it that yet; that will be our fallback position. Let’s think of something worse””. They started off with the planning gain supplement, which created such an outcry that they were able to fall back comfortably on the community infrastructure levy, so now they have the tax they wanted. It is because of the question of whether this is a tax or a levy that I have tabled Amendment No. 435A, which would delete the words, "““with the consent of the Treasury””." I have seen those words in lots of Acts and have put them into Acts myself. They indicate quite clearly that this is a tax matter. This is not a levy or a charge, but just another tax. Yesterday we heard the honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, saying that he was going to support small businesses and we heard at Question Time today about the help that the Government are giving small businesses. Yet with the other hand they stick a knife into small businesses by adding another tax. The timing could not be worse. It is just like the home information pack; that may have been a lovely idea when it was dreamt up but by the time it got on to the statute book, it was a disaster and has done nothing to help the housing market. CIL will do exactly the same. When this gets on to the statute book, we will be in the middle of a recession and nobody will want to develop anything because of the tax implications. Amendment No. 435C seeks to insert the words ““part only of”” the cost. Why should all the costs incurred be paid by this dreadful tax? Amendment No. 435D would provide that the tax should be paid on costs directly incurred in providing the infrastructure. Why should this tax help other projects rather than the one with which it is concerned? That is also the reason for the words ““partly”” and ““wholly or partly””, contained in Amendments Nos. 435E and 435F. If we are to have this tax and developers will have to pay for added infrastructure, it should be related directly to the project in question, not to something much wider. Then we have this terrible phrase at the end of subsection (2), where it says that the tax is paid on land, "““the value of which increases due to permission for development””." It is quite clear that somebody in the department does not know how development works, because planning permission does not necessarily mean an increase in value. This part of the Bill contradicts Clause 200(5), and it is for that reason that I would like to remove those words. Amendment No. 435J would delete reference to the Secretary of State. I think that the noble Baroness has an amendment in her own right on that, also deleting reference to the Secretary of State. That takes me on to Amendment No. 436, which again deletes the reference to Secretary of State as well as those to the Welsh Ministers and the Mayor of London. Why are they charging authorities? I beg to move.