HC Deb 19 June 1973 vol 858 cc557-64
Mr. Lawson

I beg to move Amendment No. 243, in page 223, leave out lines 25 to 36 and insert:

1. Survey Section 4.
2. Acquisions, etc. Sections 102 and 109 to 1114
3. Other functions Sections 117 to 120'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments.

No. 244, in page 233, leave out line 39 and insert:

1. Survey and Structure Plans Sections 4–8.
1(a). Local plans Sections 9–13'.

No. 231, in clause 171, page 99, line 8, leave out from 'authority' to 'prepare' in line 10 and insert 'shall'.

No. 232, in page 99, line 12, at end insert: '(1A) Notwithstanding that a general or regional planning authority have carried out their duty under subsection (1) of this section the authority may, at any time, submit to the Secretary of State a fresh report on their district'.

No. 233, in page 99, line 20, leave cut from 'it' to end of line 22.

No. 234, in Clause 172, page 100, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

No. 235, in Clause 174, page 101, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

No. 236, in page 101, line 33, leave out subsection (4).

No. 237, in page 101, line 36, leave out subsection (5).

No. 238, in page 101, line 41, after 'general', insert or 'district'.

No. 239, in Clause 175, page 102, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert: '(1) A regional planning authority may assume the functions of a district planning authority within their district in relation to the preparation and submission or adoption of a structure or local plan if in their opinion the fulfilment of the planning policy proposals set out in the report on their district submitted to the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of section 171 of this Act will be adversely affected by the failure of the district planning authority to prepare and submit or adopt an appropriate structure or local plan. This subsection applies to the alteration, repeat or replacement of a structure or local plan as it applies to the preparation and submission or adoption of such a plan'.

No. 240, in page 102, line 22, after 'to', insert 'structure or'.

No. 241, in Clause 177, page 103, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 242, in Clause 181, page 105, line 2, leave out from 'advice' to end of line 8.

Mr. Lawson

It is appropriate that all the amendments standing in my name be taken together. They all relate to one point. I have no intention of delaying the House at this late hour.

It will perhaps be agreed that the Bill stems from the need to have comprehensive planning. It might be said that that is the core which runs through the Bill. Although planning has often been mentioned there has been very little discussion about planning.

I took the precaution several days ago of giving to the Under-Secretary of State an excellent document which had been prepared by the planners of Scotland. In my opinion, it is an exceedingly well drafted and clear document. It describes certain matters which the planners regard as important and which have been entirely omitted or not understood at all. They point out that Wheatley drew a distinction between what Wheatley and others have called strategic planning and structural planning.

The point is made in the document to which I have referred that the Bill seems to be based upon a total failure to understand that there is such a thing as structural planning. The document quotes a couple of paragraphs of Wheatley of considerable importance to which perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will refer. It uses those quotes to show how detailed structural planning is. The point is made that structural planning is very detailed. This is seemingly accepted by the Government and their advisers in regard to the districts in the Strathclyde Region. These districts, which are substantially larger than many other regions, will be in a different position. The document says: If, for example, Strathclyde Regional Authority were to be responsible for producing the plans which identified such things as traffic access points, public service terminals, main concentrations of shops and offices and conservation areas, traffic-free zones and action areas in the many urban areas throughout its Region, one shudders to think how long it would take these plans to be forthcoming, yet this is the degree of detail which it is proposed should be encompassed by an urban structure plan. It is suggested that none of these items bears any relevance to the essential elements of a strategic regional plan. The suggested amendments stem from the thought that, certainly for a region like Strathclyde, which will cover half the population of Scotland, structural planning, if this is what it means, will be far too detailed.

The document asks that, instead of this, the basis for action should be the strategic plan. This is sensible. I hope that the Minister will tell us and those planning officers who have to carry out this work that he accepts the argument and will if, not tonight, at least in another place, make such adjustments as are needed to meet the excellent argument of those officers.

Mr. Dalyell

I should still like to be clear, after all we have gone through, precisely what is meant by "strategic planning" which is a marvellously grandiose phrase. Strategic planning to me means central decisions such as the bringing of British Leyland to Bathgate, or a major project to Hunterston. These decisions are made not by an authority in Scotland but by a central decision of the British Cabinet in Downing Street or Great George Street. Even at this late stage I should like to be clear precisely what the phrase means. These terms are still mixed up with obfuscation, and I should like to be clear that the Government know what they mean by them.

Mr. Younger

I agree very much with those last remarks. That is what leads to this problem, and I am glad that we are discussing it. The different terms in planning matters are used in different senses by different people at different times. What is more, bridging the whole process of local government reform was the introduction of new Planning Acts in 1969, half-way through the process of the Wheatley Commission producing its report, and leading to legislation. As a result, different sets of people have talked about different conceptions at different times and meant different things.

Paragraphs 820 and 821 of Wheatley can be taken to imply that structure plans should be done by district authorities, but they do not reflect the precise information of what will be contained in structure plans or local plans or who should be responsible for each. Paragraph 819 makes this clear and warns against too literal an interpretation of the use of the terms "structure plan" and "local plan" in the report. Consideration of this whole question by the commission was substantially complete before consideration of the 1969 Planning Act, which first provided for structure and local plans, was complete.

The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) expressed his views about structure plans. He wondered what they should contain and how much detail they should give. He referred to his planning friends, and no doubt he has discussed this with them. He knows that there is an interim Scottish manual which is in rather more general terms than the equivalent English manual. This is because no Scottish local planning authorities are as yet preparing structure plans, and because of the local government reorganisation in Scotland we thought it right to wait before specifying in too much detail what is appropriate for structure plans and what is appropriate for local plans until we can see the formal pattern of local government planning machinery that we are going to have to deal with.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that structure plans and all that they are intended to cover may or may not be meant to cover whole regions such as Srathclyde, or that indeed they may or may not be intended to confine themselves to matters appropriate to what is sometimes called "regional strategy"—another term with a half-way meaning across these definitions.

If the hon. Gentleman means by that that from Section 5 of the 1972 Act, which indicates broadly what structure plans are intended to cover, they are enabled to cover whole regions or confine themselves to matters of regional strategy he is correct. No regional authorities existed or were in prospect when these provisions were first enacted in our planning legislation. The Bill also recognises in Clause 172 that any structure plan need only cover part of a region. Indeed, many of them will probably only do so. But I could not from there take the long step to saying that structure and local plans should be the responsibility of district authorities instead.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not want to be difficult, but can we have an example of a structure plan covering part of a region? My trouble is that I think that this is a lot of gobbledygook.

Mr. Younger

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means an example of an area of my own selection or whether he wants a description of what a structure plan consists of. It is a very difficult thing to answer off the cuff. It would take a long time. But he will know that the difference between these plans is basically that a structure plan—it is obvious to him but not to everyone—does not normally consist of a picture, map or drawing as such but is the description of a plan describing the general characteristics of the various part of the area to which it is referring.

Mr. Lawson

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that no one has properly worked out what is meant by "structure plan"? That is the difficulty. Why not attempt it? Why not say that the conception of a structure plan or structural planning was produced when much smaller areas were being thought of but that now that we have these very large areas and large groups of people the conception has to be taken further? That is all that these people I referred to are asking for.

Mr. Younger

I do not disagree but that is very much what I have been saying. I hope the House will absolve me from giving a dissertation on everything regarding planning at this hour. It would not be appropriate for me to do so and I do not think I would carry the House with me if I did it. I am trying to relate the hon. Gentleman's amendments to the specific questions which he tried to ask. But if we want a general and broad debate on all aspects of the new planning systems, descriptions and structure plans, we shall have to take an opportunity on another occasion. I could not possibly do that at this stage.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Dalyell

Let it be registered that this is precisely the deep worry that many of us have about the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman has said, candidly and honestly, is that this business of planning has not been thought out. I think that there is a great deal of pretentious verbiage used by people who select grandiose phrases without knowing what they mean in concrete form. I am against pretentious verbiage because it creates confusion and muddle.

At half-past midnight on the second day, after what some of our colleagues have been through, it is just not good enough for the Minister to say that we shall have to leave any further discussion to another occasion. Unless we are clear on the crucial problem of planning and know what we are about, I do not think that it does any of us very much credit to pass the Bill.

It might be interesting to ask why more attention has not been given to it. But if at the end of the day we cannot have these terms defined, this is a recipe for muddle and confusion.

Mr. Younger

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. If we have a debate on all aspects of modern planning, I shall take part gladly and willingly. But I suggest that if I were to launch into a dissertation on this now, I should be most unpopular with many hon. Members. It is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to castigate me and to make out that this is because I do not know what I am talking about, when he must know how unpopular I should be if I undertook to do what he asks.

Mr. Dalyell

I am not blaming the Minister solely. I am blaming myself as much as anyone else. Far too many of us have left it very late. I have been extremely inhibited about it personally, for good reasons or bad. I think that the Wheatley Commission assumed that the economies of scale always operated and that bigger was better. In all our discussions it has come out that many hon. Members have said that that by no means follows in the context of local government.

I feel inhibited about it because I served on the Committee which considered parts of the Finance Bill where many hon. Members sweated away for many sittings working very hard. At the same time, the fact is this assumption of the Wheatley Commission that the economies of scale operated. In all the discussions what has come out is that in terms of local government this is by no means self-evident. What was thought to be self-evident may not be true.

Mr. Younger

I can see the hon. Gentleman's worries. I have had many of them myself at times.

I content myself with saying that the hon. Member for Motherwell, who has a deep personal interest in these matters, has done a great service in raising them and in sending his memorandum to me, which I found very interesting.

It is very desirable that we have an opportunity to discuss this in full, but I hope that it is agreed that we cannot embark upon it now. I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell for raising these matters, but his general proposition that structural planning should be done at district level in future is not one that I could support. We have to go for the three tiers of planning document which I envisage coming from the Bill—the structure plan, the regional plan and the local plan. I think that that is the right pattern to fit the majority of cases, as well as for the new local government set-up.

Mr. Lawson

My purpose was to draw this aspect to the attention of the Government. I did not expect very much more from the Under-Secretary. I appreciate his difficulties. It may be that on another occasion we can go more fully into this. At present, in view of the time and in view of the undertaking, so far as it is an undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to