Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Jenkin of Roding (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning Bill.


Planning Bill

My Lords, I shall intervene briefly, if I may. There was a point early on—after Second Reading, and in the light of the strictures that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had aimed at what it described as a purely skeleton Bill—when I felt that there really was a case for persuading the Government to drop this part of the Bill altogether and reintroduce it as separate legislation after they had had a great deal more time to work out the details. Since then, the Government have tabled a large raft of amendments. As I said in Committee, I thought that perhaps in the circumstances it would not be right to try to defeat the whole of Part 11, and I withdrew the amendments that I had tabled to delete a large number of the clauses. However, my noble friend Lord Caithness has said many of the things that I have been increasingly feeling about the Bill as it has emerged. What I find particularly worrying is this creation of a system where developers will be allowed to play one authority off against another because there will be different rates of CIL, different kinds of exemptions and different treatment regarding CIL and Section 106 agreements. There is no doubt that this is going to be a field day for the lawyers. Should we be creating something that leaves so much uncertainty? After these debates I end up a great deal more worried about this part of the Bill than when I started. At the same time I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness that our job is to persuade the Government of how to make it work better. I am deeply disappointed that this House will have no role in any of the regulations. Due to the way the system works, as we do not have an amendment to that effect the other place cannot do anything about it. If we had passed the amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made this point—we would have been able to do that, but we lost it by six votes. I am deeply disturbed by all this but, like my noble friend, I do not think I can support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in seeking to abolish the whole part; we have gone too far for that. That is the position I will take on this, but I do so with a very heavy heart. I am not a betting man, but I am prepared to bet that within two years we shall have another substantial Bill to try to correct what will be, by then, the apparent deep flaws in this legislation because it has not been properly thought through before it has been introduced. That will probably fall to the next Government. I hope I shall then be sitting behind my noble friends on the Front Bench. The last thing I shall want to say to them is, ““I told you so””, but I will say so to the people who will then be sitting on the opposition Front Bench, along with, ““Look what a mess you’ve left us””. That is what I feel is going to happen, and I find it a deeply depressing situation. However, I fear I shall not support the noble Baroness’s amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c735-6 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Appeals Charities Compulsory purchase Climate change Buildings Common land Airports Design Delegated legislation Brownfield sites Housing Fees and charges Land Liability Infrastructure Exemptions Farms Housing associations Land use Gardens Local government Planning permission Nuisance Planning Power stations Railways Parliamentary scrutiny Noise Parks Parliamentary privilege Standards Transport Sustainable development Social rented housing Roads Wind power Urban areas Regional spatial strategies Planning gain supplement Infrastructure Planning Commission Community infrastructure levy
Legislation
Planning Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk