| Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
|
|
Mr. Francois: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we already have different speeds in different parts of the country and that we already have different arrangements for London? Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are in a multi-speed situation in terms of devolution and I see no reason why we cannot be multi-speed in terms of the rearrangement of the planning system. Once there are elected bodies—we heard under the previous clause that the powers will be taken away from the Secretary of State when there are elected regional bodies—there will be some devolution of power. The Secretary of State will no longer have the control over planning that he has at the moment in that he could call in the plan of any level of body and exert control over it. I hope that the Minister will, if he does not accept the amendment—I would be stunned if he did—at least take good heed that there is an electoral problem for the Government. This is, potentially, the most controversial aspect of the Bill—the taking of powers from elected bodies and handing them to unelected bodies. I am fairly certain that that is something that the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and probably many Labour peers and Cross Benchers in the Lords will have an interesting time agreeing on. I suspect that the Minister will need to find a way of accommodating our concerns. If a line is to be drawn in the sand on this Bill, this is probably where it is. If the Minister does not accept amendments here or on Report, this is probably the issue that will cause us to continue to vote against the Bill, as we did on Second Column Number: 358 Reading. We accept that there is much in it that would improve the planning system, but to take powers away from elected people and hand them to unelected people is a step too far. We cannot find that acceptable.I am pleased that the Conservatives have tabled the amendment, even though I do not think that it is the way to deal with the problem, as it has allowed us to raise the issue and to deal with a serious democratic deficit. Mr. Turner: I am pleased to support the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Ludlow has pointed out, they sharply illustrate the key problem, which is that local authorities are going to lose powers either to a nominee or a group of nominees of the Secretary of State, or to the Secretary of State himself. Neither the nominees nor, to a lesser extent, the Secretary of State, will have any democratic accountability within the region. The group of nominees that has been appointed to the regional planning body for the south-east of England, fortuitously, includes a member of the local authority in my constituency. His name is Harry Rees and he is the economic development portfolio holder. Until he retired recently, he ran a successful tea shop in Shanklin, so he is eminently qualified for such an illustrious position. Matthew Green: Which party does he represent? Mr. Turner: He calls himself an independent, but he is an ex-Liberal. He still works for the Liberal Democrats. Like many independents in my constituency, he has overthrown his independence to sign up to a dirty coalition with the Liberal Democrats— The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is distracting himself. Mr. Turner: I was merely responding to the question in my normal, courteous fashion. However, I shall take your advice, Mr. Hurst. He, at least, has the advantage, in terms of representing the Isle of Wight, of being a resident of it. The Secretary of State is not a resident of the Isle of Wight and most of the appointees to the planning body are not residents of the Isle of Wight. The Secretary of State is not even a resident of the south-east of England. He is a resident of Hull, of Clapham, and of Admiralty arch. He is, for one day a month, according to a recent article in the Evening Standard, a resident of Dorneywood. However, although that is technically in the south-east of England, it is so metropolitan that it hardly counts. My only concern about my hon. Friend's amendment is that if the Secretary of State does not designate one of the bodies, then the Secretary of State will be the regional planning body for the south-east—or, indeed, any other area. While there is very little of advantage in a regional planning body that is designated by the Secretary of State—a series of place men appointed by the Secretary of State—there is even less advantage in the Secretary of State himself acting as the regional planning body. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that limited criticism. I shall, of Column Number: 359 course, support his amendment, but I hope to have the opportunity to vote against the clause on stand part. One problem with the regional bodies is that they represent no known geographical area. There is no such place as the south-east of England. There might be such a place as Yorkshire—of course there is—but there is no such place as Yorkshire and Humber. There is no such place as the south-west of England. Any hon. Member who represents a Cornish constituency would concede that, at least going by the boundaries designated by the Secretary of State. There is, of course, a region known as East Anglia, and I shall not argue too much about its boundaries, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh might have a different view from mine. However, the idea of regions is alien to the traditions of most people in the area broadly south of a line from the Wash to the Severn. For that reason, among others, I reject the idea of regional planning bodies.Matthew Green: As a proponent of regional government, I share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations about the current boundaries. The Government made a big mistake in accepting boundaries that were established by a Conservative Government for an entirely different reason—for administrative purposes. I believe that it is possible to redraw the regional boundaries so that they can be accepted by the public and can perform a useful function. If the regions were such that they made sense to the people—such as the Marches region in my area, with which people identify—would many of his reservations disappear? Mr. Turner: Some of my reservations would certainly disappear. The idea of sharing power over one's life is entirely acceptable to those with a commonality of interest. However, it would be difficult for my constituents who live in Ventnor or Freshwater to identify a commonality of interest with people in Guildford or Milton Keynes. I am sure that it would be equally difficult for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to identify a commonality of interest with the constituents of St. Ives and South-East Cornwall. There is a strong divide—I received a newsletter about it the other day— The Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that the clause is not so widely drawn. We are not debating the merits or otherwise of regional government. Mr. Turner: I accept your guidance, Mr. Hurst. The point of discussing the boundaries encompassed by regional government is whether it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to have power over a region, or to designate that power to someone or something else. That is why I drew attention to the different demands of various parts of the country. I can see that I am trespassing on the Committee's time, and that they might want to deal with more than the first three clauses before 7.15 pm. I am pleased to support the amendments, but I think that we might have a debate on clause stand part. Column Number: 360 Keith Hill: I was magnetised by the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric and could not wait for him to continue. I will endeavour to reply to this interesting and wide-ranging debate. To begin, I would like to identify the purpose of amendments Nos. 271 and 272. Their effect would be to alter clause 2 to allow the Secretary of State to designate a body as a regional planning body only if there had been a positive vote in a referendum for an elected regional assembly. Some opponents of the arrangements in the Bill take the line that there should be no planning reforms in England. Instead, they believe that the new arrangements should apply only in areas where elected regional assemblies are to be established, if and when they are. As drafted, the amendments appear to go even further, implying that there should no regional planning bodies until such time as the regions have voted in favour of an elected regional assembly. The Bill would make the Secretary of State responsible for preparing all revisions to regional spatial strategies and for exercising the functions of the regional planning board generally as he thinks appropriate. Amendment No. 117 would remove the Secretary of State's power under clause 2 (3) to withdraw recognition of a body as the regional planning body. The amendments raise two key issues—first, the need for reforms to regional planning and, secondly, whether changes should be made only if a region has voted in favour of an elected regional assembly in a referendum. I contend that we need effective planning at regional level. The Government believe, as did their Conservative predecessors, that regional planning is essential. Without it, we cannot sensibly address the many planning problems that cut across administrative boundaries, or properly co-ordinate transport and other investment decisions to ensure that we get the right strategic balance. Decisions about correcting major imbalances between growth and decline in a region cannot be taken at a lower level. A practical example is the 1996 regional planning guidance 13 for the north-west, issued under the Conservative Government. That was a good illustration of why regional planning is necessary. One of its objectives, which we supported and which was right at the time, was to secure a modest shift in emphasis to the principle transport axes running north to south—the west coast main line and the M6 motorway. Of course, the regional planning system needs to be improved. It needs to be more responsive to regional circumstances and priorities, and better able to tackle strategic planning problems where they occur. Frankly, it needs more teeth. For those reasons, regional spatial strategies should be statutory, and so part of the development plan. We should not continue with a system where outdated lower-level plans can take precedence over more up-to-date regional plans in key planning decisions. We need a system for strategic planning based around interdependent areas on the ground, not one that is constrained by administrative Column Number: 361 boundaries. County boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. Many strategic planning issues cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at a regional or sub-regional level.We need inclusive regional planning bodies, which consult with communities and stakeholders and involve local authorities, to take the lead on reviewing and proposing revisions to regional spatial strategy. That is what part 1 of the Bill is about.
4 pmI do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cotswold that the new arrangements for regional planning will result in a democratic deficit unless they happen only where there are elected regional assemblies, which he does not support either. First, a system enshrined in law rather than one based on administrative arrangements, such as the regional planning guidance issued as part of the current system, is surely stronger in democratic terms, if only because it is subject to this kind of scrutiny and debate. Secondly, the regional spatial strategy is ultimately the Secretary of State's document, and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and to this House. Thirdly, the members of the regional planning body are accountable to their constituent bodies, which include local authority members. The arguments about the democratic deficit imply arbitrary, unaccountable decision making by the regional planning body, which is not a fair picture. Through legislation and guidance, we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest will have the opportunity to be involved in the regional planning process, which provides a place for representations, examinations in public and consultation with communities, stakeholders and local authorities. The hon. Gentleman says that those changes should happen only in regions where people have voted for an elected regional assembly, but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree. The regional planning reforms are essential and should be implemented as soon as possible. They should not be delayed and made only in regions in which people have voted for an elected regional assembly. The Government are committed to stronger regional arrangements in all regions and establishing elected regional assemblies if people vote for them in a referendum. We made that point clear in the regions White Paper, ''Your Region, Your Choice''. We have said that we are committed to policies that recognise regional differences as a strength for the nation and that are developed closely with the people whom they affect. We want regional solutions founded in regional knowledge. I shall turn to the effect of amendments Nos. 271 and 272.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 23 October 2003 |
