Examination of Witnesses(Questions 200-219)
MR MICHAEL
ROBERTS, MR
DAVID COATS
AND MR
IAN BRINKLEY
TUESDAY 17 DECEMBER 2002
200. You have only half answered the question,
you said "if". You have got the Bill, you have seen
the Bill, does it?
(Mr Roberts) I was quite specific in saying that on
the local development scheme proposals we have not seen the detail
of how it will operate at this stage. Inevitably my answer is
still an "if" on that particular point.
201. You have sympathy for Members of the Committee
when they are faced with it because they will have to say "if"
too because they will not be seeing the secondary legislation.
(Mr Roberts) We have enormous sympathy for you on
this point.
Christine Russell
202. Is there not some substance in the arguments
that you, the CBI, convinced the Treasury and the DTI that there
was a real problem with the structure, if you like, of the planning
system and that is why we have got saddled with this Bill?
(Mr Roberts) We emphasised that there were a range
of concerns with the operation of the planning system, part of
it was structural and part of it was about the operation on a
day to day basis. To that extent, therefore, we are supportive
of the overall programme of reform that the Government has put
forward, both in terms of some aspects of what is in the Bill
and in terms of what can be done outside of the need for primary
legislation. We stand by those initial sets of concerns that we
expressed which have led subsequently to this programme of action.
Chairman
203. After you gave evidence to us last time
you did this survey, or got MORI to do the survey for you. Actually
planning, apparently, was about thirteenth of the things which
worry people out of 15, not exactly a very high score, was it?
(Mr Roberts) In terms of the proportions of business
people who indicated it as a significant issue for their ability
to do business and in terms of making investment decisions I think
the returns were significant, 65% I think of business people responding
to that survey indicated that the planning system had a moderate
to significant impact on their ability to do business.
204. But they had an awful lot of worries which
were much higher up the list.
(Mr Roberts) Which I have said already.
Mr Clelland
205. Can I put a question to the TUC just to
indicate you have not been forgotten about. In your evidence you
seem to suggest that planning is not a major concern in terms
of improving productivity and performance. Can you explain to
the Committee what are the main factors that influence productivity
and performance in the UK compared with OECD countries?
(Mr Coats) Perhaps I can start by referring to the
work that we did with Michael's colleagues at the CBI about 18
months ago where we looked at four areas which we believed were
the key drivers of productivity both in the UK and elsewhere.
The first is investment and we found that the UK had a generally
poorer record on investment than many of our major competitors.
The second is innovation and technology which is both about the
links between the science system in universities and business
but also the ability of businesses to network with each other
and transfer technology and best practice. The third is skills
where the UK has a lot of ground to make up both on basic skills
and intermediate skills for people already in the labour market,
although new entrants to the labour market are better qualified
than in the past. Finally, what the TUC and CBI described as best
practice but is really about innovation in work organisation,
new production systems and the use of new technologies in the
work place. In our view those are the four central drivers of
productivity which featured in our joint report.
206. What grounds do you have for arguing that
planning is not a major influence?
(Mr Coats) We cannot see any direct link either from
the UK evidence or the international evidence that can demonstrate
that the nature of your planning system has some fundamental impact
on overall productivity. The US, France, Germany have broadly
similar levels of productivity, with the US marginally ahead but
very different planning systems. The Netherlands I think has higher
GDP per hour worked than any of those countries and a rather rigorous
planning system because it is a small country with lots of environmental
constraints. We do not see that there is any strong evidence to
draw a linkage between planning and productivity. A final point
on the US, it is hardly surprising that planning constraints may
be slightly weaker there in that land is not at a premium and
population densities are low so it is easier to find a greenfield
site for new development. That is not so true in the UK or elsewhere
in Europe.
Sir Paul Beresford
207. You think we are wasting our time with
the Planning Bill? It is not really going to make the difference
it is touted to do.
(Mr Coats) If there is a problem with the system as
it works at the moment we would not identify necessarily the day
to day operation of planning arrangements as an obstacle to improving
productivity. I think we would say, however, that the way in which
major planning inquiries into big infrastructure projects are
handled can get in the way of sensible economic development. Generally
speaking these projects, like Heathrow Terminal 5, will go ahead
but after a rather long protracted process which turns into, I
think, a form of outdoor relief for the planning bar for many,
many years which is not something that public money should be
spent on.
Mr Clelland
208. Does the CBI have any comment on what the
TUC has submitted in terms of what they see as a lack of influence?
(Mr Roberts) The one point I would make is the need
to draw a distinction between whether there is a relationship
generally between planning and some of these key factors which
have just been mentioned on the one hand and on the other hand
the size and scale of that particular relationship. I think in
principle we would say that there is a link, what is extremely
difficult to do is to establish how significant that link is.
Our memorandum did indicate that, for example, with regard to
the functioning of the labour market, with regard to promoting,
for example, some of the newer industries which in some cases
are characterised by smaller firms, property, and by extrapolation
the planning system, has a knock-on effect on these things. There
is a linkage, at least in principle, it is difficult to establish
how large that linkage is.
Dr Pugh
209. Can I just take you back a bit. In an earlier
question you were asked to respond to the claim made by the Director-General
of the CBI. It goes like this: "In every respect, every survey,
we conduct, every business we talk to . . . planning is always
at the top of the agenda as a fetter on the productivity enhancement".
When asked to produce a survey today you talked about a survey
conducted after the event whereas you could have produced, on
the basis of this remark, almost any survey because all the surveys
of the CBI, apparently, allegedly, show that. You have shown that
65% of businesses raise it somewhere but not at the top of the
agenda. Would it be fair to say that the Director-General's remarks
are more saloon bar talk than evidence based information?
(Mr Roberts) I thought the Committee would welcome
reference to a rather recent and, therefore, topical and timely
survey. Our Director-General is extremely assiduous at going around
the country and talking directly to businesses both inside and
outside—
210. What surveys was he talking about then?
(Mr Roberts) I could not recall any particular survey
that he had in mind.
211. He said "every survey", there
must be hundreds of them in the CBI, surely?
(Mr Roberts) Not every survey is specifically asking
a question about, for example, the impact of regulation, of which
planning is one form, not all of our surveys refer to that. I
think you are at danger, if I may suggest, of taking his words
a little too literally in that respect.
212. You are saying something different, that
is clear, is it not? You are saying something different from what
the Director-General said?
(Mr Roberts) What are you saying that I am saying?
213. I am saying that you are not saying in
your evidence here that every survey you conduct, every business
you talk to says that planning is always at the top of the agenda
as a fetter on productivity, you are not saying that?
(Mr Roberts) What I have sought to do is to provide
you with at least some evidence, albeit through a survey—
214. But you are not saying that.
(Mr Roberts)—of the importance of planning to
the interests of our members.
215. Okay. Could it be though that there is
a problem with the planning process because businesses are basically
entrepreneurial, they are do it and go kind of enterprises. If
they come up against a democratic body which has to make a planning
decision, and is not able to do it straight away, do they have
unrealistic expectations of the planning system?
(Mr Roberts) I think there are differences of culture,
clearly, between businesses generally and the local planning authority
generally. I think what is an issue of concern to them is not
necessarily that decisions more often than not go against them,
in fact there is a very high rate of success in approving planning
permissions, particularly for commercial applications. The concern
is what they perceive to be the unnecessary time that it takes
to reach some of those decisions. To give you one specific instance
to explain the generic: 30% of all commercial planning applications
which are refused by local authorities are overturned subsequently
on appeal. That seems to be a pretty high proportion and it is
the sort of issue which suggests to our members that perhaps there
should be a better way by which, in the first instance, a local
authority will come to the "right judgment".
216. Does the difference in culture explain
some of the gripes?
(Mr Roberts) I think there is a high level of expectation
and that is driven by organisations whose culture is to respond
to customer need in many respects and to organisations where perhaps
they are conscious of the way in which their competitors seek
to respond to their customer needs. It is driven by an expectation
of service and a delivery and I think there is a difference of
approach there.
Christine Russell
217. Can I ask you about public consultation.
Do you agree that one of the reasons why the planning process
can take a long time is because of the extent that planning authorities
go to, to consult local people who will be affected by developments?
What is the view of the CBI? Do you feel that the degree of public
consultation should be reduced?
(Mr Roberts) Certainly we are not advocating that
there should be public consultation and that it should be full.
I have not got a particular view on whether in aggregate the level
of public involvement is too high at the moment and in some sense
it should be reduced. I think the advertisers make sure that the
public involvement is engaged as effectively as possible.
218. What role do you feel that the applicant
should have in the way of doing public consultation? Do you see
that would be a helpful move?
(Mr Roberts) In principle, yes, I think it would be
helpful for applicants to consider what the interests of the local
community might be in pursuing the particular development. I think
the issue at stake here is what may be required formally by way
of community involvement. The concern would be that the requirements
for a large development or the requirements on larger firms may
be fine for them but may not be appropriate for smaller firms
pursuing the one-off application for planning permission.
Chris Mole
219. Would you agree that it is better, perhaps,
for the consultation to be got out of the way on the local plan
or the local development framework so that the consultation with
individual applications can be scaled down? Is that perhaps a
benefit of the Bill that is before us today?
(Mr Roberts) Again, subject to the point I made about
lack of detail about what exactly the local development schemes
will involve.
| 
