Localism Bill

My Lords, I have some amendments in this group, which I shall try to rattle through as quickly as possible. I start by saying that we support the broad thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has just said. Amendment 148ZZBBB is a kite-flying amendment that would include building improvement and renovation of housing. The noble Lord has spoken more eloquently than I would have done, so I shall say no more about that. However, this is a very serious problem with the new system. Amendments 148ZZBBA and 148ZZCA, are very similar to amendments that were tabled in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend Simon Hughes. He asked us to table them again here, since he was given a fairly sympathetic response by the Minister when he talked to him about the amendments—they were tabled in the Commons but they were not debated there. They would widen the possible use of the CIL. Amendment 148ZZBBA leaves out the words ““providing infrastructure to support”” and inserts the word ““supporting””. The proposed provision refers to the development of an area. In other words, the amendment would allow the CIL to be spent on projects that support the development of an area, and not just what might be narrowly defined as infrastructure. The amendment would amend Section 205 of the Planning Act 2008. Amendment 148ZZCA makes a similar amendment to Section 216 of that Act, which at the moment—ignoring the preamble—reads: "““CIL regulations must require the authority that charges CIL to apply it, or cause it to be applied, to funding infrastructure””." Amendment 148ZZCA would add ““or any other matter””. That means that CIL could be used to fund things that are desirable in the area but not necessarily described as infrastructure. Many areas, particularly big cities, do not necessarily require extra investment in their infrastructure, but that does not mean that local residents are not inconvenienced by development. They might be inconvenienced by noise, dirt or dust, or there may be nuisance from the operation of the development. A supermarket could have people coming in and out all the time, and making noise around closing time. This could be mitigated by investment in, for example, double glazing. However, this is not currently allowed under the legislation; it is not regarded as infrastructure. In reality, councillors with the opportunity of getting CIL will always levy it and will always find ways of spending it. However, they will not necessarily spend it on the best and most useful thing that they could spend it on if they have to stay within the narrow definition of infrastructure. Amendments 148ZZBBC and 148ZZCC just propose replacing ““ongoing”” with ““continuous””. I regard ““ongoing”” as being an unpleasant American word that came in probably several decades ago—I do not know—but the English word is, in my view, ““continuous””, which would be better and more elegant. Amendment 148ZZCD refers to regulation-making powers in the Bill that refer to passing CIL, "““to a person other than that authority””." I am not trying to remove that provision, and I should say that this is a probing amendment to find out what that phrase means and who these other persons might be that the authority would or might have to pass the CIL to. Amendment 148ZZBAZA relates to the same argument about authorities being able to make up their own minds after a charging scheme has been examined by an examiner and to obtaining their recommendations. It is the same argument that was made two groups ago, and I will not say any more about it. I do not imagine that the Government will agree with me about that, but it is important. The next amendment in the group is about the same matter, so I shall not speak to it any further. Finally, I speak to Amendment 148ZZZBE. On page 77 of the Bill, proposed new subsection (7A) to Section 211 states: "““A charging authority must use appropriate available evidence to inform the charging authority’s preparation of a charging schedule””." That seems to be garbage. Why does that have to be in legislation? There are then eight indications of what CIL regulations may make provision for. I shall not read them all out, but only a couple of them to provide a flavour, including, "““provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not appropriate””," and, "““provision as to how evidence is, and as to how evidence is not, to be used””." They are all like this. Finally there is, "““provision as to how the use of evidence is to inform the preparation of a charging schedule””." They are the kind of quite extraordinary provisions that ought not to be in legislation. It is insulting that local authorities cannot make sensible decisions on their own without being given such minute and detailed instructions on exactly what to do. If the Government are to respond to all the criticisms made in this Committee about the detailed regulations that are being imposed, I hope that they might look at this provision as being at best redundant and at worst quite ridiculous.