| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Age-Related Payments Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Question agreed to.
DEFERRED DIVISION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
On the motion "Visitor Facilities", the Ayes were 333, the Noes 46, so the motion was agreed to.
[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]
12 May 2004 : Column 414
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
Lords message considered [11 May].
Clause 1
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
12 May 2004 : Column 415
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
12 May 2004 : Column 416
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
12 May 2004 : Column 417
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.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |