---

 
21 Apr 2004 : Column 277
 

House of Commons

Wednesday 21 April 2004

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Regional Government

1. Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab): What the relationship would be between an elected regional assembly and the Northwest Development Agency. [166251]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The Northwest Development Agency would become directly accountable to the elected regional assembly rather than to central Government, but it would retain its present day-to-day operational independence. The assembly would appoint the chair and board members of the RDA, publish the regional economic strategy and set the agency's budget.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas : I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming his Department's report, which was published on Monday, which recognised the contribution that our core cities strategy has made to investment and employment opportunities for cities such as Liverpool? Will he also acknowledge the role that the Northwest Development Agency has played in securing fantastic investment, certainly in my constituency, with a great impact on the sustainability of communities such as mine?

Phil Hope: The core cities have indeed been very successful. People are returning to our cities. In 2002–03, the Northwest Development Agency created or safeguarded more than 16,700 jobs in the region. In my hon. Friend's constituency, unemployment has dropped by no less than 54 per cent. since 1997. There is, however, still much to do to reduce the economic disparities in England, and unlike the Tories, who oppose anything with the word "region" attached to it, we believe that a new elected regional assembly in the north-west will be a real champion for the people of that
 
21 Apr 2004 : Column 278
 
region, bringing them more jobs and prosperity and giving local people democratic control over decisions and resources in their area.

Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): What did Lord Rooker mean when he said that an elected regional assembly in the north-west would have no new powers and no new money?

Phil Hope: My noble friend Lord Rooker often speaks in the other Chamber and elsewhere forthrightly on these matters. He knows, and we know, that the powers of an elected regional assembly are widespread: they will not only have regional economic development as a major role, they will promote jobs and skills and have responsibilities for planning, housing, transport, arts, tourism, sport, fire and rescue, public health, rural regeneration, the environment, promoting the region in Europe, and sustainable development. That is the real job that regional elected assemblies will have, and unlike the Tories, we are backing them all the way.

Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab): I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the magnificent contribution that the Northwest Development Agency is making both to economic regeneration around Luneside and to the development of InfoLab at Lancaster university, which will be the hub of science-based business across the north of the north-west for many years to come. Is it not imperative for all the people of the north-west, and especially those living north of Lancaster, that we have an elected regional assembly to ensure ownership of such vital developments and proper integration of those superb regeneration initiatives throughout all the urban and rural areas of the region?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the economic benefits to urban and rural areas of an elected regional assembly are there for us all to see, and we are giving the people of the north-west the choice. It seems odd to me that all the benefits that he has outlined are opposed by the Tories, who are against giving people a choice in this referendum, yet seem to wish to give them a choice in other referendums.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): The Minister should listen to Lord Rooker rather more carefully. If he really wants to promote economic development in the north-west and other regions, should not more power over economic policy be devolved, for example to learning and skills councils and in regional transport policy, giving regional assemblies real power to make a difference? Is not his and the Deputy Prime Minister's timidity on regional devolution in danger of producing a no vote in the autumn referendums?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman once again ploughs this furrow. I wish his party was more consistent. The Liberal Democrats support devolution, for which we are grateful, as it gives power to the people in creating democratic institutions for the regions. We look forward to getting their support on the doorstep,
 
21 Apr 2004 : Column 279
 
backing the yes campaign—whether we in fact get it is a matter for them. I am quite clear where our party sits, and I certainly know where the Tories stand.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con): The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that there is no public demand for the proposed changes to local government resulting in the transfer of powers to regional assemblies. I feel a bit sorry for the Minister, who has to defend colleagues whose views differ from those of his Department. Does he think that she was right or wrong?

Phil Hope: I welcome the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to her post. I understand that she is leading her team, although we on the Government Benches get slightly confused about who in her party is doing what—no change there.

The choice for the people of the northern regions—the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber—is absolutely clear. Do they want their region to have a strong voice? Do they want democratic control of the resources and of the decisions made in their region? Do they want jobs and economic prosperity to come to their region through the creation of an elected regional assembly? That choice is absolutely clear, and my party supports it. I wish that the Conservative party would stand up for the north for once, rather than running it down.

Mrs. Spelman: As the Minister will not say clearly why he thinks that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is wrong, perhaps I may tell him why I think that she is right. Why should people in the north-west be expected to foot the bill for a costly new tier of politicians that they neither want nor need, and that will not result in one extra nurse, doctor or teacher? At a time when trust in Government politicians is at an all-time low, why is the answer to create yet more bureaucrats, more regulations and more politicians?

Phil Hope: It seems that Conservative Front Benchers should talk to one another. The hon. Lady's colleague the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) announced on Monday that the Conservatives would scrap every single regional structure that they could find, despite the fact that Conservative councillors up and down the country are taking an active part in regional chambers and assemblies that are doing a good job. Moreover, he mentioned one or two proposals for local government, including a £2.5 billion cut in local government funding. How many nurses, teachers and police officers would that cut from front-line services? The hon. Lady needs to get a hold on her brief before she makes such an accusation in this Chamber.

Planning (Local Accountability)

2. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): If he will make a statement on local accountability in relation to the planning system. [166253]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Under our plan-led system, local planning authorities are responsible for producing local plans and taking decisions on the vast majority of planning applications.
 
21 Apr 2004 : Column 280
 
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reforming the planning system to achieve better and more up-to-date local plans, improve the processes for handling planning applications and ensure that local communities are involved in plan preparation from the outset. That will improve accountability, efficiency and effectiveness.

Andrew Selous : Why should the East of England regional assembly—unaccountable, unloved and unelected by those who are affected—dictate development policy? Why will the Government not trust local people to take the planning decisions that affect their environment through the local councillors whom they elect?

Keith Hill: I might point out that the East of England regional assembly, which the hon. Gentleman castigates so comprehensively, is dominated by his party. The fact is that those decisions are taken by elected representatives from his own party. However, let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been so persistent on this issue, that the people of south Bedfordshire for whom he speaks will benefit from the economic growth associated with the proposals for Luton airport, and that they cannot be immune from the housing consequences of that. This Government will ensure that the transport infrastructure is put in place, and we will start with brownfield. We will accept no strictures from a party that, when in government, allowed developers to rampage over the countryside.

John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): Can it be right that when some sandal-wearing lobbyists from London are the only objectors to new roundabouts on the A1, that automatically leads to a 12-month delay and a public inquiry, whereas when my constituent Mrs. Harvey and her councillor wish to object to a development in an adjoining property to hers, they are told that the decision will be taken by the local council on delegated authority because the Government have specified that 90 per cent. of all planning decisions must be made through delegated authority? Is that local democracy or is it not?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend is in fine popular—one is tempted to say even populist—vein. We are seeking to ensure that sandal-wearers from any part of the country cannot unreasonably impede planning developments. That is one of the central proposals of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. My hon. Friend is right to say that a substantial number of lower-order—if I may put it that way—planning decisions are delegated, but that is essentially a matter for local authorities and elected representatives. It is open to his local authority and councillors, I dare say at his excellent behest, to change that system if they so desire.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): The Minister's words about local accountability and local consultation will ring pretty hollow with my constituents in the village of Cottenham, who have seen planning inspectors overrule local opinion and the local authority time and again to grant ever more Traveller permissions on greenfield sites over and above the 35 sites that have existed without dispute for many years.
 
21 Apr 2004 : Column 281
 
[Interruption.] It is not about Travellers; it is a matter of size. Why will the Government not take heed of local opinion about the number of people who can be integrated into a local community, and why do they consistently override the local accountability that the Minister apparently praises?

Keith Hill: I do not share the impatience of some Members with the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We have followed developments in Cottenham very carefully and we wholly understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is articulating. He will understand that those matters are still the subject of planning applications and in some cases before the courts, so it is difficult for me in my quasi-judicial capacity to express a view. Let me say, however, that we are aware that existing enforcement procedures are very time consuming, which is why the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, to which I referred earlier, will introduce the option of temporary stop notices. They should be helpful in cases such as Cottenham. We will also emphasise the opportunities available to local authorities through planning guidance.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the proposed changes to PPG6 on out-of-town shopping centres will not reduce the power of local authorities to refuse applications for them? In particular, will he assure me that developers will not have any greater ability to insist on one large single site for such developers, which naturally forces shopping centres out of town, and that local authorities will not have taken away from them their power to refuse extensions to centres such as Meadowhall in my constituency? If that were extended, it could damage not only Sheffield city centre, but Rotherham town centre and other district centres.

Keith Hill: These matters are subject to case-by-case decision making, and it would be wrong to issue a general directive against extensions or developments in any circumstances whatever. However, my hon. Friend should understand what we have achieved since we came to power in 1997, and realise the purposes of PPG6—and, indeed, the revised PPS6—which are to continue to resist greenfield development and to protect our inner-city areas and town centres. The fact remains that, as the planning permissions granted by the Conservatives for greenfield development begin to run out, we are seeing increasing development in city centre areas. So successful has the return to the city centre been in our major cities that we are now turning our attention to the second tranche of smaller towns and cities, where we want to encourage the same revitalisation that we have seen over the past six to seven years in the larger towns.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): On the subject of planning and development, the Minister knows that the green belt was always intended to be a tight belt of land to prevent urban sprawl. Since 1997, however, it has been less a belt than a piece of elastic, as the green belt has expanded further into the open countryside and from the places it is supposed to protect. Given that the Library told me that answers thus far to questions on that matter have been "imprecise"—indeed, it described them as "evasive"—
 
21 Apr 2004 : Column 282
 
will the Minister tell me how much urban sprawl has taken place since 1997 and explain to the House how many acres of inner green belt have been developed under Labour?

Keith Hill: The answer is perfectly simple. Since the Government came to power, we have expanded the green belt by 25,000 hectares and there are plans to extend it by a further 12,000. It was the hon. Gentleman's party that allowed low-density development to destroy and concrete over our countryside, and it is the Labour Government who are committed to brownfield first. We are already achieving well above our 60 per cent. objective for development on brownfield sites, and we will continue with that purpose.

---