Winchester T: 01962 893 893 F: 01962 893 883
London T: 020 7812 6490 F: 020 7812 6677
info@remarkable-engagement.co.uk
Find out more about Localism visit localism-agenda.com
Winchester T: 01962 893 893 F: 01962 893 883
London T: 020 7812 6490 F: 020 7812 6677
info@remarkable-engagement.co.uk
Find out more about Localism visit localism-agenda.com
The Localism Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons yesterday, when MPs voted it through by 329 votes to 227. Earlier, a Labour motion to suspend the second reading on the basis that the Bill hands more powers to the Secretary of State than communities, and complex issues such as neighbourhood planning had not been adequately thought through, was defeated by 332 to 228.
The debate failed to shine a light on the complexities of the Bill, and there remain numerous unanswered questions that will require further detail at a later stage. Nick Raynsford MP (Lab), said that he would "challenge anyone, even the most experienced parliamentarian, to have an easy evening's read if they try and wade through its countless clauses and schedules", and David Lammy MP (Labour) had to admit that he had been unable "quite to get into it" on account of it being a "thick and huge document".
Opening the debate, Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), stated that the previous planning system had been over centralised and had caused people to lose faith in the system. He said the system had not built homes, and reiterated the Government's pledge that the localism agenda would lead to an increase in building.
Declaring that the "era of big government is over", Pickles said that the Bill represents the "final nail in the coffin for the most illogical and unpopular measures of the previous government".
Caroline Flint MP, Shadow Secretary of State for the DCLG, opened for Labour by arguing that the Bill would empower no one apart from the Secretary of State himself, and said the Bill "does nothing to convince us that it is anything more than a smokescreen for unprecedented cuts to local communities up and down the country".
Linking the Spending Review cuts to the Bill was a theme Labour members returned to again and again throughout the debate, as they sought to show that the cuts could not be extrapolated from the Bill, and that one could not be examined without looking at the other. Flint argued that "local councils face cuts that go deeper than in almost any other Whitehall department; cuts that fall heaviest in the first year; cuts that hit the most deprived communities the hardest. There is nothing localist about that."
Describing the situation in her own constituency, Labour member Shabana Mahmood said: "Birmingham has to make savings of approximately £170 million pounds in the next two years, and is one of the hardest hit local authorities... The sheer size of the cuts in Birmingham will prevent the people of Birmingham from getting the most out of the localism agenda."
Arguing that the Bill empowered nobody but the Secretary of State was Labour's other main line of attack. Poking fun at Pickles, Flint noted that he had only made six visits to communities since being installed at the DCLG, though he made an effort to keep in touch by writing:
"Week after week, local councils are inundated by missives, diatribes and diktats from Ministers, lecturing them on how to organise a street party for the diamond jubilee and on the right way to celebrate Christmas, instructing them on what their street signs should look like and when to empty the bins, and telling them to axe their council newspapers even if its costs more to put the notices in the local paper. That is not localism, and nor is much of the Bill."
Flint noted that the Bill provided an "arsenal" of more than 100 new powers for the Secretary of State. David Blunkett MP (Lab) concluded that the government was centralising the power but decentralising the pain.
Unsurprisingly, these views were not echoed on the Government benches, whose MPs voiced enthusiasm for localism and for the Bill.
Since its publication in December, the planning industry has been busy scrutinising the Bill, but in many important areas bodies such as the RTPI have concluded that there is a distinct lack of information. Those hoping that the second reading would have cleared up matters will be disappointed, however, huge questions remain on important areas such as neighbourhood planning.
One fundamental question the debate failed to answer is what localism actually is. Clive Betts MP, the Labour chair of the DCLG select committee, said: "By instinct and philosophy I am a localist, so it gives me no great pleasure to say to the Secretary of State that the Bill is a missed opportunity. I simply do not see in the proposals a coherent philosophy telling us what localism is all about."
Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Lab) said that localism reminded him of Humpty Dumpty's phrase in ‘Through the Looking Glass': "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." The Labour member for Southampton Test was quick to note that he meant no comparison between Dumpty and Pickles.
Betts did welcome several provisions in the Bill, including the general power of competence and the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), but he expressed concern at the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs), noting:
"...what will happen if the sum total of all those local decisions is that fewer homes are built and not enough wind turbines are built to meet our renewables obligations? What is their fall-back position? Is it that at that point the Secretary of State will intervene, or is it they will accept the sum total of local will across the country and fall down on their national house-building targets and their renewables obligations? What is the government's position? I have not heard a coherent explanation of it."
This remains the question for the government to answer, though interestingly there was no real mention of the New Homes Bonus scheme which it believes will incentivise building.
Labour further challenged the government's assertion that the Localism Bill would lead to an increase in house building as Flint noted that 160,000 homes had been ditched by local authorities since the election in May 2010, amounting to 1,300 per day. She said:
"On the big issue of how we get more new affordable homes the Bill is ominously silent. The Government seem unmoved by the fact that the number of planning permissions for new homes in the last quarter of 2010 was down 18% on the record low of the same period in 2009. They seem unmoved by the fact that the housing waiting list figures rose by 12% between July and September, and the Secretary of State is unmoved by the fact that his proposed reforms to the planning system in this Bill could make things worse."
The only real debate over RSS figures though occurred between Greg Mulholland (Lib Dem), Stuart Andrew (Con), and Toby Perkins (Lab). The former two argued that the abolition of RSSs would be a positive change, but when Perkins asked whether Andrew believed that "fewer houses will be built in his constituency as a result of the abolition of the regional spatial strategies, and, if so, does he think that that is a good thing" - contrary to the government's position - Andrew responded: "We will have the number of houses that we can cope with".
On the point of affordable housing, Andrew argued that the council had increased its required provision from 25% to 35% for developments, though there was no discussion on what the overall figures would be.
Mulholland also raised the question of what should happen between now and the point that the Bill is enacted, asking: "Does he agree that it is disgraceful that developers such as David Wilson Homes are trying to get forthcoming developments such as the one in Adel through the back door before the new guidance comes in? Does he not agree that the people of Adel should have the power to stop such a development now?"
Mulholland perhaps missed the irony that his intervention in a specific planning application was hardly in the spirit of localism, but until this question is answered, the industry will remain in a state of limbo.
One point backbenchers on the government side expressed disappointment in was the exclusion of a third party right of appeal. The measure was included in the Conservative's planning green paper, Open Source Planning, but was later dropped after criticism from the industry. Many Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs expressed a desire to see it included in the Bill. Simon Hughes MP (Lib Dem) argued that there was a "good case" for it, and Mulholland said that he was disappointed that "the planning system will continue to allow developers an automatic and unlimited right of appeal, while not allowing communities even a limited right."
The community right to buy was broadly welcomed on the government benches, though - as with much of the Bill - members conceded the detail needed working on. Sheila Gilmore, the Labour MP for Edinburgh East, commented that the right to buy already exists in Scotland, but warned that it "becomes an empty gesture" if communities are not given adequate funding.
Mulholland - in his capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary save the pub group - said: "Given the way in which the community right to buy provision is currently worded, entrepreneurs or small breweries would find it more difficult to buy and run a pub that represented what the community wanted. In many cases, the right to buy is not only unrealistic but undesirable. It would affect only a few pubs, and I think that the government should look at the drafting again."
Mulholland suggested a six-month moratorium be triggered when plans are presented for a pubs' use to be changed or demolished - rather than sold, as is currently proposed - and that during that period two things should happen. Firstly, the local authority should conduct an independent viability test of any pub that seeks change of use, and secondly, there should be an independent community consultation process.
However, Jack Lopresti MP (Con) was able to provide the House with an example from his constituency of the community right to buy already being embraced by South Gloucestershire Council:
"It is giving the Save Conygre House campaign group, which is behind efforts to save the historic Conygre house, in Filton where I live, the time and space to build a business case for taking on the facility and making it a focal point for the Filton community. With this Bill, councils throughout the country will be encouraged to follow suit, which I know local communities will welcome with open arms."
The community right to challenge, where local organisations can take over community assets, was mocked by Labour, who argued that it was a convenient way to cut services. Andy Slaughter MP (Lab) said:
"What local organisations taking over community assets means in Hammersmith and Fulham is that all money is withdrawn, the staff are sacked and in some cases the premises are sold - Sure Start centres and libraries, for example. Then the community is told, 'if you want to run these centres on your own behalf with no money from the council, and sometimes with no premises, the go ahead'. That is called the big society."
Other points that came out of the second reading included:
The Bill will now pass to the Committee stage, where it will be given greater scrutiny.
You are here: Home / Second reading leaves many unanswered questions