---

Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill

I shall not detain the House long as all the important points have been made, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in speaking to the new clause. Inevitably, much suspicion surrounds any section 106 agreement in England or section 75 agreement in Scotland; I guess that the provisions are similar. Local residents are concerned that, under current arrangements, such agreements effectively are little more than a bribe that developers pay to the local authority. At least if the money goes to the local authority, one can rely on the fact that certain improvements will be made in the locality. If the money—30 per cent. or rather more—is now to go to the Scottish Executive, local residents will be even more concerned. It is clear that the focus needs to be on local benefits as far as possible, and it cannot make any sense that there will now be a middle man in the form of the Scottish Executive. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out that the Mayor of London may see this measure as a precedent. He is already looking to expand his planning powers through the Greater London Authority Bill that is going through Parliament. I agree with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the potential unintended consequences of the proposal. Inevitably, if there is to be another layer of tax, the reaction of any sensible, commercially minded developer will be simply to sit on his or her hands. That is how things have worked in the past. I accept the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). One of the biggest concerns of us all, particularly those of us in relatively built-up constituencies, is the demand for more social or affordable housing. The reality in London, after six years of the Mayor of London’s policy that there should be at least 50 per cent. social housing in large-scale developments, is precisely as I have pointed out; developers have decided to sit on their hands rather than go ahead with new developments and have watched as the value of their sites has risen yet higher. It has been the very worst news for the most vulnerable in our society, particularly in built-up areas. I think that we all appreciate that as our societies become ever more polarised between the extremely rich and the extremely badly off—I am sure that that applies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and in Glasgow constituencies—that is potentially something of a disaster. What the Government are proposing is a total mess. I fear that our new clause will alleviate matters only to a very small degree, but I hope that we will be able to vote on the matter, and that in this debate and on Third Reading we will be able to make a very strong case against this absurd proposal. It will be very bad for Scotland and for England. I am only sorry that, as a number of my colleagues have pointed out, there are not more Scottish Members present. One hopes that they would have been able to put the case even more robustly and defend their own interests.