HC Deb 12 May 2004 vol 421 cc414-23

Lords amendment: No. 3.

4.7 pm

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I and 3J.

Keith Hill

The last time the Bill was before the House, I said that, given concerns about sub-regional planning and the role of county councils in particular, I was prepared to review the package in a way consistent with our policy, in order to make the arrangements work as well as possible on the ground. Given the unhappy procedural events of the past week I have, I think, gone further than is strictly necessary, but I feel that we owe it to local authorities, developers and all involved in the planning system to secure a closure on the legislation.

Last time, we discussed the statutory guarantee that at least 60 per cent. of the members of each regional planning body would be members of local authorities. We have previously discussed the mandatory role given to county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise in advising the regional planning body, as agreed and, I remind the House, publicly signed up to and welcomed at the time by both the Local Government Association and the county councils network. When introducing the amendments in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Rooker said he hoped the CCN would not thank us for our efforts in relation to them, as he would not be able to take such a letter from it seriously. I have to say that I agree with those sentiments wholeheartedly.

I look to local government, and to the CCN in particular, to ensure that the arrangements work, and to engage constructively in the process. The Government are serious about putting in place an efficient, effective and speedy system that creates sustainable communities, delivers the houses that our people need and protects the environment. That is why we have brought forward these fundamental reforms through the Bill. That is why we have given local authorities £350 million through the delivery grant for planning purposes.

Let me put on record now, and put local government on notice, that, if the arrangements that we are agreeing to through these amendments prove unworkable because of a lack of good will from the parties concerned, we will come back and amend the law. We must have effective regional planning.

I turn to the amendments themselves. I will be brief but it is important that this is put on record. The regional planning body will have a duty to consider whether one or more sub-regional frameworks should be included in the regional spatial strategy. The amendment defines those frameworks as different provision in relation to different parts of the region. The regional planning body must seek the advice of the counties and other authorities with strategic planning expertise on whether the sub-regional frameworks are desirable. The lead in preparing the draft detailed policies for such a framework must be taken by one or more of those authorities, except when they and the RPB agree that one or more district councils or the RPB itself should do so.

Matthew Green (Ludlow) (LD)

Will the Minister confirm that, although there is a duty on the RPB to consult the counties about the desirability of these bodies, the decision on whether there will be any bodies will still lie with the unelected RPB, which can, of course, ignore the advice given to it by county councils?

Keith Hill

The hon. Gentleman seizes the opportunity to make an all too familiar propagandistic point, but the simple answer to the question is yes.

The regulations to part 1 will need to set out any necessary procedural detail. That may include, for example, clarifying that the sub-regional work would be performed according to a brief set by the RPB. In further recognition of county councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities, we will strengthen their role in the following three ways.

First, we will amend planning policy statement 11 to provide that the panel will examine major issues of contention between the regional planning body and those authorities relevant to a matter being considered at the examination in public. Secondly, we will amend planning policy statement 12 to make it clear that the county councils' advice should be sought and considered by the district councils in preparing local development documents, and development plan documents in particular, given county councils' service responsibilities and expertise relevant to plan implementation. Thirdly, we will make it clear in PPS12 that district councils, in planning the preparation of local development documents, should have regard to the capacity of the county council and/or national park authority to provide prompt advice.

We have long recognised the sub-regional dimension to the regional spatial strategy and the role of authorities with strategic planning expertise in developing that dimension. As well as the amendments, we will further strengthen that dimension in two ways. We will amend PPS11 to emphasise that although in some parts of a region local development documents should be capable of being prepared within the context of the generic policies of an RSS, in other areas it will be necessary to have sub-regional frameworks as part of the RSS. That might be, for example, where important development or infrastructure proposals cross local authority boundaries. That will help to guide the RPB in applying the policy as expressed in the amendment. We will also draw attention to the role of the RPB in identifying the need for joint local development documents where that will be helpful in implementing the regional planning strategy.

Further to my reply to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the RPB takes the decision with regard to the involvement of other authorities but must act reasonably, which includes taking account of the advice that it receives.

In conclusion, this package of changes, although, I repeat, not strictly necessary, reflects considerable discussion and represents a workable way forward. I commend the changes to the House.

4.15 pm
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

This is, indeed, a memorable day. It is memorable because the Minister for Housing and Planning is engaged in a substantial climbdown. I do not want to delay unduly the House's proceedings and I do not want to cause him unnecessary suffering, but it is important to put on the record the fact that the change in the Government's approach to this matter is a profound one, which has been forced from them. They have come kicking and screaming to a point at which they now acknowledge that there should be greater competence for sub-regions—in practice, that will usually be counties—in the business of drawing up planning strategies.

That is a vital change, which has been wrought from the Government by the good work done principally, I have to say, in the other place by peers who have put democracy first. To a lesser degree, I humbly point out that it has been helped by my hon. Friends and me in this House, as we have sought to emulate the strong and persuasive arguments made by peers, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat. The Liberal Democrats have played an important and valuable role, and it would be wrong of me not to mention that. I have enjoyed the close co-operation with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that has brought the Minister to the point at which, contrary to all his earlier suggestions—contrary to his claims that the case that we made on this specific subject was not persuasive—he has finally agreed that it is vital for local people and communities to have a critical role in the development of regional spatial strategies.

"Regional spatial strategies" is an arcane phrase for major developments that will affect local communities profoundly, alter the character of the local landscape, cityscape, townscape or villagescape, and possibly have long-term effects on the quality of life of countless thousands of people You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you follow these matters assiduously, that the Minister made a bold but entirely unconvincing case for that power being transferred wholesale to the regions. He told us that the regions would be the best level at which people could make their representations. He believed, I think genuinely, that the regions were more in touch with local people than their elected representatives in districts and counties.

Why the Minister came to that view almost defies understanding, but certainly that was what he put to the House from the Dispatch Box when challenged repeatedly by my hon. Friends and me, and by Members from the other parties represented here today—although I have to say, not in great numbers.

Matthew Green

The hon. Gentleman should speak for his own party.

Mr. Hayes

Well, I reckon that we have a ratio of 5:1, and given that the Liberal Democrats constantly crow in their leaflets that they care more about local democracy than does either of the other two parties, it would be unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to play that hand too vehemently.

So the Minister has told us that there has been a change of heart—a turnaround. The truth is that there would have been no such reverse in his position had he not passed the Bill to the Lords—with what he described as a difficulty—in such an inappropriate form that it would have died but for the proper ministrations of that place and his ultimate but reluctant acceptance of its proposals. The truth, as we know from what was said in the other place, is that the Government were forced to make this change.

When such cock-ups occur—if I might use that term—it is the Minister who must accept responsibility, for the buck stops with him. There is no use in his saying that he was badly advised, or that the cause was his busy schedule. He is a man with many personal interests who has many other fish to fry, but he cannot argue that that is why he was unable to pay sufficient attention to the matter. He is a lateral thinker and a man of wide interests, and it may well be that this important measure slipped down his list of priorities and. escaped his notice. Perhaps he put it in his Sunday afternoon box and was unable to get to it because it was right at the bottom.

Notwithstanding the allowances that we make because we wish to be kind and generous to the Minister today, he was ultimately responsible for passing the Bill to the Lords in a form that would have killed important Government proposals. He was then obliged to change his position, quickly and fundamentally, on an issue that had been discussed in the other place and here ad infinitum. Indeed, he had previously made absolutely clear his opposition to the case that was properly made by local representatives, county councils, Lords and Commons.

So the Minister appears before us today rather like a sinner entering heaven. The truth is that we must treat him with generosity. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that St. Luke tells us that the joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth is a glory to behold. We accept that the Minister is a repenting sinner, and we understand that he has recognised the important case that has been made for local democracy. As he said, it is worth putting on the record just what that means in practice. It means that planning policy statements 11 and 12 will be amended, and that the Bill will include a duty to consult and to seek advice from the sub-regions, which, for the most part, means the counties.

The Minister made a useful point in answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Ludlow. He said that in having a statutory duty to take account of such matters, the regions must also act reasonably. If the regions ignore that aspect of the legislation, the sub-regions—the counties and districts—and other interested parties might well have a case in law. If the regions simply ignore the Minister's important U-turn, the counties will undoubtedly complain fiercely on behalf of local communities that it was no U-turn at all, and that the Minister was simply paying lip service to local democracy to save his wretched Bill.

Of course, the problem is that the longer one takes to climb down, the further and harder the climb-down becomes. If, in the spirit that the Minister showed when dealing with other matters, he had listened carefully to the proper concerns of this House and the other place about local democracy, and heard the case that we made about political legitimacy—as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the regions will not be directly elected; they will be remote and only indirectly accountable to local people—we would have welcomed his conversion in a spirit of good will, and with characteristic Tory generosity. However, because the conversion had to be squeezed from a reluctant Minister—it was facilitated by the Government's procedural error, which can be described only as incompetence—our generosity is offered, frankly, in a rather different manner and style and at a rather different time.

We are still going to be generous and say that the Minister was right in what he said today about the role of sub-regions in the drawing up of strategies and about the need at each stage of the process to involve all those who can speak directly for the people because they are directly elected and accountable to them. He was also right that the amendment improves the Bill. It is still not, I have to say, a great Bill and perhaps not even a good Bill, but it is certainly a better Bill than it would have been if the Minister had not accepted the Lords amendments. It is in that spirit of generosity that we accept the Minister's opening remarks today.

The Lords have been so insistent on this matter because, not for the first time, they speak for the people when the Government speak simply for themselves. There is a certain irony in the fact that an upper House that has suffered so many slings and arrows from Government Members is making the case to protect the interests of people and local communities in respect of major development decisions; and that, in so doing, the upper House is articulating the argument for democratically elected councils more effectively than Ministers are able or willing to do.

I welcome the change and would have liked to see more. I am sure that that is what the hon. Member for Ludlow will say, and I look forward to hearing his remarks. He will doubtless say that he would have liked more on the binding nature of inspectors' reports, but I believe that the Minister may move a little further in our direction on that matter too. I know that the Minister has considered the matter carefully and I believe that he may offer further concessions on inspectors' reports. He may not do so today, but he may want to go away and think further about it. The hon. Member for Ludlow may also say that further concessions on regional authorities are necessary. We have debated at length whether regions should exercise powers when they are not directly elected. The important concession that we want is a firm step in the right direction.

I do not want to abbreviate the argument, so let me provide a couple of examples of how that might work. Sometimes major regional developments and plans—or major infrastructural projects—may affect several counties and spread across a number of districts. They may sometimes go beyond the boundaries of a region. In those circumstances, it is vital that the views of local people—articulated through the districts and counties—be taken into account.

As the Bill stood before, that would have been almost impossible. It is true that the regions would have taken some notice, I guess, of strongly felt local opinion properly expressed to them, but there was no statutory obligation on the regions to take account of local opinion or advice.

The Minister said that, in those cases, the amendments to PPS11 mean that sub-regions will be asked to comment on infrastructural changes in major developments that affect their areas. We also heard that amendments to PPS12 mean that the county council, as the provider of a range of services, will be able to make a case about the impact of recommendations from the regional authority in respect of that provision. Those important changes recognise the vital role of counties and show some understanding of local communities' real concerns.

4.30 pm

I shall not go on any longer, as other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I certainly look forward to what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say, and I have no doubt that he will want to offer a glowing tribute.

In conclusion, it is probably worth saying that the Minister is widely regarded as one who genuinely listens to comment from across the House. He is well respected for his willingness and ability to consider criticisms, suggestions and proposals from hon. Members of other parties. When he can, he takes them on board. As was evident only yesterday in connection with the Housing Bill, he has sometimes been able to amend Bills accordingly.

That is the context in which our criticism of the Minister must be regarded, but we are critical of him—for not doing weeks ago what he has done today, for exercising the House's patience by refusing to accept the arguments that he now endorses, and for being forced into his current position by the inefficiency of his Department. Ultimately—because the Minister has to report upwards—I suppose that he has been forced into this position by the incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister.

We will not press the matter because, at last, we agree with the Government and accept what they are saying. In short, we will not press the matter, because we have won.

Matthew Green

I congratulate the Minister on finally completing a process that has lasted 18 months. The passage of the Bill through the House must be one of the longest in parliamentary history. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) has left the Chamber—perhaps he could not stomach much of the speech by the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—but he and I are the sole survivors from 18 months ago. Even the Minister involved changed midway through, although that was probably for the better. It has been a long and, at times, tiring process, but the end is in sight.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings claimed that the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendments was a great victory. It is not, and the hon. Gentleman is sadly mistaken if he thinks that it is. I know that he is a romantic, because that is how he describes himself, so I shall put the matter in terms that he can readily understand.

Two amendments were ping-ponging between the Lords and this House. The Government made a very small amount of movement on one amendment, but the Conservative peers completely caved in on the other. That is not what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings wanted, and I am certain that he would have liked his, colleagues at the other end of the Corridor to keep fighting. However, I shall put the matter in terms that he will understand.

We have seen Colonel Spelman, Captain Hayes and Lieutenant Syms line up their troops to charge at the massed ranks of Labour Members set to defend centralism and reduce democratic accountability. Captain Hayes shouts "Charge!" and he, the lieutenant and the colonel charge across the field. They get halfway over, only to discover that their troops have not moved. Whatever the hon. Gentleman wanted, the Conservative peers have not followed him. They have let him down badly and the Government off the hook.

The Government have not only succeeded in persuading the Conservative peers to drop their opposition to the amendment on regional powers, but have pulled the wool over their eyes on the sub-regional groupings. To explain why, I shall quote Lord Rooker. I know that when I quote Lord Rooker, the Minister fears that I shall say "spivs" or something of the sort, but in this instance, he will be happy with what Lord Rooker said. However, it will not be palatable for the Conservatives. Lord Rooker described what the amendment would do: The amendments in lieu make it a duty"— gosh, that sounds good— that the regional planning body should consider whether it would be desirable". The regional planning body does not have a duty to do something, merely to consider whether something might be desirable. That is not some great victory; it is a smokescreen from the Government. Lord Rooker continued: The amendments require"— again, "require" sounds firm, strong and decisive— the regional planning body to seek the advice of the counties and other authorities with strategic planning expertise on the desirability of making such provision." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. 162.] That is no great victory, but mere flim-flam from the Government to persuade the Conservatives that they have achieved something.

The Conservatives have let down local councils. They have let down local councillors who have protested at these powers being taken away from county councils and unitary and metropolitan authorities, and given to unelected regional planning bodies. When Conservative councillors protest about their party's failure in months to come, I will point out exactly where the blame lies.

Mr. Hayes

I understand that the hon. Gentleman might have wanted more, but to refuse to accept that the amendments are a step forward is churlish. I do not say that about his behaviour, but because now we have this victory it is important to celebrate it joyfully.

Matthew Green

It is a step forward, but such a small one. I am just pointing out that no great victory has been won. It is a tiny victory and the hon. Gentleman described it as though it were a U-turn by the Minister to rank with the Prime Minister's U-turn on a referendum on the constitution for Europe. It does not begin to approach that.

Mr. Hayes

We are speaking not about the kingdom of Blair, but the kingdom of Hill. In that kingdom, the amendments represent a significant U-turn. The hon. Gentleman talks about the duty to decide whether it is desirable to consult sub-regionally. If the regional planning body did not do so, in a case such as Stansted or a similar major development, the courts would not look on it very favourably.

Matthew Green

It would appear that the hon. Gentleman wants there to be court cases in which county councils challenge regional planning bodies on how reasonable they have been. That is not a very effective approach, and I am sure that the Minister would not want that. Indeed, he has already threatened that if that happens he will come back to the House to remove this minor provision. In reality, of course, we will not have county councils taking regional planning bodies to court. If county councils were to do that, they would find that the Minister whipped their toys away as soon as they started playing with them.

We need to put the matter into context. Much more could have been gained, although I shall not go over that ground, as we are debating the Lords amendment. We have gained something, but not very much. It is not worth voting either for or against the amendment—it amounts to nothing. I am disappointed that after so much fine talk, and notwithstanding his eloquent debating skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings failed to persuade his colleagues in the other place to do their job properly

As I said in earlier debates, most of the Bill will improve the planning system. Its failure lies in the absence of provision for democratic accountability at regional level, and the amendment fails even to begin to deal with that issue. The Minister probably chuckled into his cocoa last night when he heard the result in the Lords. He was probably delighted, but the Conservatives have been sold a fast one, which, when their councillors throughout the country try to explain it, they will come to regret.

Keith Hill

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some of the observations that have been made in our exchanges, especially some of those made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who speaks on behalf of the Conservative party.

The hon. Gentleman crowed that this was a memorable day. He accused me of a substantial climbdown. He said that the amendment had been "wrought" from me. He accused me of lack of attention on the matter and speculated that it had fallen down my list of priorities. On the procedural matter, he accused me of incompetence. On that issue, I remind him that Ministers act, as always in such matters, on the advice of the Clerks of the House. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. He is also well aware that we acted with due diligence, as was made clear and accepted—I stress that point—in the other place.

The hon. Gentleman should realise that we are not playing a game. This is not about schoolboy pranks and good or bad losers, but about the Government's commitment to creating a planning system fit for the 21st century and about the obstacles that have been put in the way of that purpose. Thousands of people in this country need homes, yet developers and house builders complain of delays in the planning system that slow down the delivery of those homes. The CBI has told the Government that inefficiencies in the planning system undermine the competitiveness of British industry.

As a result of those representations the Government have tried to respond to the needs of our people and our economy by reforming the planning system to make it fairer, more flexible and—critically—faster. One of the important ways in which we are speeding up the process is by removing what is, we believe, one unnecessary tier in the system—the counties—to create a streamlined regional, local two-tier system. However, I fear that the amendments that I have reluctantly accepted today could go some way towards undermining the streamlining of the system.

I remind hon. Members that our elected House has repeatedly voted in favour of the two-tier system and has twice voted against the substance of the amendments, yet Conservative and—notwithstanding the somewhat emollient nature of the speech made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats—Lib Dem peers have exploited the Government's minority position in the House of Lords to foist those changes on us. It is unacceptable that the unelected House should override the repeated wishes of the elected House in that fashion. It is also unacceptable that it should happen with the encouragement of the Opposition parties in this place. On both the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the Housing Bill, Conservative and Lib Dem spokesmen have constantly treated us to threats of what their counterparts in the House of Lords would do to those measures.

The Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties compete with Labour in the general election, lose fair and square in the democratic electoral process and then collaborate with the unelected House to defeat the purposes of elected Members of Parliament. Frankly, that is a parody of democracy. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the Lords speaking for the people. What nonsense!

4.45 pm
Mr. Hayes

The Minister is right: this is not a game. It is not a game when people are defending local communities from unsuitable development and when people are trying to resist power being transferred to unelected regions, remote from where those changes might take place. It does the Minister little credit to use the debate as a vehicle to attack the House of Lords, where both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers have consistently and steadily defended the interests of those communities and local democracy. The Minister should take this one on the chin, recognise that he has made a mistake and have a little more good grace.

Keith Hill

The hon. Gentleman blusters, not for the first time in these matters. In fact, these matters have been thoroughly dealt with in the House. As his colleague the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) acknowledged in Committee, we have thoroughly ventilated the issues of democratic accountability and responsibility. Again, the repeated wishes of the House have been overridden by the House of Lords.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill

No, I will not give way.

Mr. Heald

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make this great show and pretence of bluster about the other place, when the truth is that the Government have never even mustered two thirds of their peers in any of the Divisions in which they have been defeated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a point of debate, not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.

Keith Hill

I am not in the least surprised that the Conservative party—the historic defender of privilege—has behaved in that way with regard to the other place, but I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats, who are, in principle, so committed to elected democracy, have adopted such double standards during the consideration of the Bill. If the Liberal Democrats can offer £100 off everyone's council tax in the Brent, East by-election last September and forget that offer for the June elections, who can be surprised at such double standards?

I signal again the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment.

Lords amendments agreed to.

Back to