---

Mr. Hayes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman might have wanted more, but to refuse to accept that the amendments are a step forward is churlish. I do not say that about his behaviour, but because now we have this victory it is important to celebrate it joyfully.

Matthew Green: It is a step forward, but such a small one. I am just pointing out that no great victory has been won. It is a tiny victory and the hon. Gentleman described it as though it were a U-turn by the Minister to rank with the Prime Minister's U-turn on a referendum on the constitution for Europe. It does not begin to approach that.

Mr. Hayes: We are speaking not about the kingdom of Blair, but the kingdom of Hill. In that kingdom, the amendments represent a significant U-turn. The hon. Gentleman talks about the duty to decide whether it is desirable to consult sub-regionally. If the regional planning body did not do so, in a case such as Stansted or a similar major development, the courts would not look on it very favourably.

Matthew Green: It would appear that the hon. Gentleman wants there to be court cases in which county councils challenge regional planning bodies on how reasonable they have been. That is not a very effective approach, and I am sure that the Minister would not want that. Indeed, he has already threatened that if that happens he will come back to the House to remove this minor provision. In reality, of course, we will not have county councils taking regional planning bodies to court. If county councils were to do that, they would find that the Minister whipped their toys away as soon as they started playing with them.

We need to put the matter into context. Much more could have been gained, although I shall not go over that ground, as we are debating the Lords amendment. We have gained something, but not very much. It is not worth voting either for or against the amendment—it amounts to nothing. I am disappointed that after so much fine talk, and notwithstanding his eloquent debating skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings failed to persuade his colleagues in the other place to do their job properly.

As I said in earlier debates, most of the Bill will improve the planning system. Its failure lies in the absence of provision for democratic accountability at regional level, and the amendment fails even to begin to deal with that issue. The Minister probably chuckled into his cocoa last night when he heard the result in the Lords. He was probably delighted, but the Conservatives have been sold a fast one, which, when their councillors throughout the country try to explain it, they will come to regret.

Keith Hill: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some of the observations that have been made in our exchanges, especially some of those made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who speaks on behalf of the Conservative party.
 
12 May 2004 : Column 422
 

The hon. Gentleman crowed that this was a memorable day. He accused me of a substantial climbdown. He said that the amendment had been "wrought" from me. He accused me of lack of attention on the matter and speculated that it had fallen down my list of priorities. On the procedural matter, he accused me of incompetence. On that issue, I remind him that Ministers act, as always in such matters, on the advice of the Clerks of the House. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. He is also well aware that we acted with due diligence, as was made clear and accepted—I stress that point—in the other place.

The hon. Gentleman should realise that we are not playing a game. This is not about schoolboy pranks and good or bad losers, but about the Government's commitment to creating a planning system fit for the 21st century and about the obstacles that have been put in the way of that purpose. Thousands of people in this country need homes, yet developers and house builders complain of delays in the planning system that slow down the delivery of those homes. The CBI has told the Government that inefficiencies in the planning system undermine the competitiveness of British industry.

As a result of those representations the Government have tried to respond to the needs of our people and our economy by reforming the planning system to make it fairer, more flexible and—critically—faster. One of the important ways in which we are speeding up the process is by removing what is, we believe, one unnecessary tier in the system—the counties—to create a streamlined regional, local two-tier system. However, I fear that the amendments that I have reluctantly accepted today could go some way towards undermining the streamlining of the system.

I remind hon. Members that our elected House has repeatedly voted in favour of the two-tier system and has twice voted against the substance of the amendments, yet Conservative and—notwithstanding the somewhat emollient nature of the speech made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats—Lib Dem peers have exploited the Government's minority position in the House of Lords to foist those changes on us. It is unacceptable that the unelected House should override the repeated wishes of the elected House in that fashion. It is also unacceptable that it should happen with the encouragement of the Opposition parties in this place. On both the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the Housing Bill, Conservative and Lib Dem spokesmen have constantly treated us to threats of what their counterparts in the House of Lords would do to those measures.

The Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties compete with Labour in the general election, lose fair and square in the democratic electoral process and then collaborate with the unelected House to defeat the purposes of elected Members of Parliament. Frankly, that is a parody of democracy. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the Lords speaking for the people. What nonsense!

4.45 pm

Mr. Hayes: The Minister is right: this is not a game. It is not a game when people are defending local communities from unsuitable development and when
 
12 May 2004 : Column 423
 
people are trying to resist power being transferred to unelected regions, remote from where those changes might take place. It does the Minister little credit to use the debate as a vehicle to attack the House of Lords, where both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers have consistently and steadily defended the interests of those communities and local democracy. The Minister should take this one on the chin, recognise that he has made a mistake and have a little more good grace.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman blusters, not for the first time in these matters. In fact, these matters have been thoroughly dealt with in the House. As his colleague the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) acknowledged in Committee, we have thoroughly ventilated the issues of democratic accountability and responsibility. Again, the repeated wishes of the House have been overridden by the House of Lords.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make this great show and pretence of bluster about the other place, when the truth is that the Government have never even mustered two thirds of their peers in any of the Divisions in which they have been defeated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a point of debate, not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.

Keith Hill: I am not in the least surprised that the Conservative party—the historic defender of privilege—has behaved in that way with regard to the other place, but I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats, who are, in principle, so committed to elected democracy, have adopted such double standards during the consideration of the Bill. If the Liberal Democrats can offer £100 off everyone's council tax in the Brent, East by-election last September and forget that offer for the June elections, who can be surprised at such double standards?

I signal again the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment.

Lords amendments agreed to.

 
12 May 2004 : Column 424
 

Promotion of Volunteering Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

4.47 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Promotion of Volunteering Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act.

Before speaking to the money resolution specifically, I should explain that my purpose in moving the resolution is to allow full discussion of the issues raised about the Bill in Committee. I gave such an undertaking on Second Reading, and I want to ensure that the concerns raised by the Bill are fully aired. The moving of the money resolution is essential to that process.

The Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), is likely to have some expenditure implications for the public purse. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to make provision, by regulation, for training courses about volunteering for members of the judiciary—including, in particular, sport and adventure training, as well as training in the workings of the Bill. It provides that those regulations may prescribe that that training be provided by courses established by Sport England, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, and such other bodies as the Secretary of State may see fit. It also provides for the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the training courses provided and the number of judges who have attended those courses or any other training on the provisions of the Bill. Training would have to be provided for all members of the judiciary who deal with personal injury cases, including all district judges and circuit judges in the county court, as well as all judges sitting in the High Court Queen's Bench division.

Training of members of the judiciary is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, an independent body funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The provision of training courses raises a number of cost issues, including administrative costs such as the provision of appropriate accommodation and catering; the cost of lost sitting days caused by the removal of judges from their courts to attend the course, which may also involve the cost of providing a deputy to sit in place of the judge concerned; and miscellaneous travel and subsistence costs incurred by the judges in attending the course. Under the scheme proposed by the Bill, those costs would have to be met either by the Judicial Studies Board or by the prescribed body, and it is likely that any such body would require Government funding for that purpose. Clearly, the cost implications will depend on a number of factors relating to the structure and duration of the training, such as the location and facilities used, and whether or not the training was residential.

As a broad indication of the possible costs, there are approximately 2,380 members of judiciary who attend JSB civil seminars and could deal with personal injury cases. The provision of dedicated one-day non-residential seminars for all those judges and the provision of deputies to sit in their place would probably
 
12 May 2004 : Column 425
 
involve additional costs of about £1 million. Those costs could be reduced if deputies were not provided, but sitting days would be lost and cases delayed.

We do not anticipate that any significant additional cost will arise from the requirement on the Lord Chancellor to report annually to Parliament. The JSB is already required to publish an annual report to the Lord Chancellor on its activities and to place copies in the Libraries of both Houses. Those annual reports give the number of judges attending courses and the topics covered at each course. There could be a small additional cost if the training was provided by a prescribed body rather than the JSB. I commend the motion to the House.

4.52 pm

---