---

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
 
12 May 2004 : Column 418
 
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.
 
12 May 2004 : Column 419
 

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
 
12 May 2004 : Column 420
 
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
 
12 May 2004 : Column 421
 
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.

---