 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Planning Bill |
Planning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 5 February 2008(Afternoon)[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]Planning BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HousePB 37 City of London
Corporation
New Clause 28Delegation
of functions of regional planning
bodies
‘(1) In Part 1 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regional functions) after
section 4
insert—
“4A
Delegation of RPB functions to regional development
agencies
(1) The RPB may make
arrangements with the regional development agency for its region for
the exercise by the agency on behalf of the RPB of any of the
RPB’s functions.
(2)
Subsection (3) applies if, by virtue of section 2(7), the Secretary of
State has power to exercise any functions of the
RPB.
(3) The Secretary of State
may make arrangements with the regional development agency for the
region of the RPB for the exercise by the agency on behalf of the
Secretary of State of any of the RPB’s
functions.
(4) Subsection (5)
applies if, by virtue of section 10(3), the Secretary of State has
power to prepare a draft revision of the RSS because of a failure to
comply by the RPB.
(5) The
Secretary of State may make arrangements with the regional development
agency for the region of the RPB for the exercise by the agency on
behalf of the Secretary of State of the Secretary of State’s
function under section
10(3).
(6) Arrangements under
this section—
(a) may be
made only if the regional development agency agrees to the making of
the arrangements and their
terms;
(b) may be varied only
if the regional development agency agrees to the variation and the
terms of the variation.
(7)
Arrangements under subsection (1) may be brought to an end at any time
by the RPB.
(8) Arrangements
under subsection (3) or (5) may be brought to an end at any time by the
Secretary of State.
(9) A
regional development agency which, by virtue of arrangements under this
section, has power, or is required, to exercise a function of the RPB,
may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or
incidental to, the exercise of the
function.
(10) Arrangements
under subsection (1) for the exercise of a function by a regional
development agency do not prevent the RPB from exercising the
function.
(11) Arrangements
under subsection (3) or (5) for the exercise of a function by a
regional development agency do not prevent the Secretary of State from
exercising the function.
(12)
“Regional development agency” means a development agency
established under section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act
1998.”’
(2) The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 is
amended as follows.
(3) In
section 8 (regional consultation) after subsection (2)
insert—
“(2A) The
reference in subsection (2)(b) to the functions of a regional
development agency does not include any function conferred by
arrangements under section 4A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004 (delegation of functions of regional planning bodies to
regional development
agencies).”
(4) In
section 11 (borrowing) after subsection (4)
insert—
“(4A) The
references in subsections (2) and (4) to the functions of a regional
development agency do not include any function conferred by
arrangements under section 4A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004 (delegation of functions of regional planning bodies to
regional development
agencies).”
(5) In
section 18 (regional accountability) after subsection (1)
insert—
“(1A) The
reference in subsection (1)(c) to the functions of a regional
development agency does not include any function conferred by
arrangements under section 4A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004 (delegation of functions of regional planning bodies to
regional development
agencies).”
(6) In
paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (delegation of functions by regional
development agencies) after sub-paragraph (1)
insert—
“(1A) The
reference in sub-paragraph (1) to anything authorised or required to be
done under an enactment includes a reference to anything authorised or
required to be done under arrangements made under an
enactment.”’.—[John
Healey.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
4
pm
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
I beg to
move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
I
welcome you back to the Chair, Sir John, for our latest, and perhaps
last, sitting. The purpose of the new clause is to allow regional
assemblies to work with regional development agencies on regional
planning issues during the period of transition towards a new set of
arrangements at a regional level, which we set out in July in the
sub-national review of economic development and regeneration. The
arrangements proposed in that plan will require separate, new primary
legislation, and we propose to consult as a step towards that before
long.
The new
clause might be the subject of some misapprehension, so I shall start
in the negative by explaining what it will not do and what it is not
for. First, it will not allow regional planning powers to be
transferred to the regional development agency. If Parliament agrees to
such a transfer, it would be under the new legislation we propose and
certainly would not be until at least 2010. Secondly, it does not allow
the regional development agency to grab those powers because the
initiative remains with the national assembly as the regional planning
body. Thirdly, it does not undermine the regional assembly, which
remains responsible as the regional planning body for the regional
spatial strategy. Finally, it does not change the
exceptional—some might say extreme—circumstances in which
the Secretary of State may take regional planning functions back from a
regional assembly as the regional planning body, as was set out in the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004.
However,
it is important that the work that regional assemblies undertake as
regional planning bodies in their area is not undermined by a reduction
of capacity or a growing uncertainty over their future. That is
particularly relevant in trying to maintain the commitment
that we set out in the housing Green Paper to earlier revisions of the
housing provisions in the regional spatial strategies.
The new
clause is designed to encourage what in some regions is already close
working between the regional assembly, the regional development agency,
local authorities and some of the other agencies and interests in the
region, and we want to allow regional development agencies to carry out
some of the regional assembly functions on their behalf where that is
wanted by the assembly and agreed by the agency.
Currently,
there are limits on what regional development agencies can do in
relation to planning, and that is where the barrier that the new clause
is designed to overcome lies. For example, they cannot employ staff to
carry out or be involved in functions that are currently assigned to
regional assemblies. In some regions, such as the west midlands, the
regional assembly and the regional development agency are keen to
pursue early staff exchanges and do more on a joint basis. Therefore,
the new clause is designed to try to remove the problems and barriers
that are present in this period of temporary transition.
We do not
propose to transfer regional planning powers to the regional
development agencies in this new clause. We will not propose to
transfer those powers until we bring further, more comprehensive
legislation that we plan following consultation
shortly.
I
hope that that is helpful and I commend the clause to the
Committee.
Mrs.
Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): I welcome you back, Sir
John, to what I am almost certain will be our final session.
The Minister
has made as good a fist as he can on this new clause 28, given that
Conservative Members are against this transfer of planning powers to
the RDAs. The parallel, I suppose, is our attempt to repeal the
Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007, because this paves
the way towards this transfer of powers to the
RDAs.
It
is kind of the Minister to indicate that some of the RDAs are very keen
to take on the regional assemblies’ planning powers. As far as I
am aware local authorities would much prefer to take on these planning
powers and get rid of the RDAs, quite apart from getting rid of the
regional assemblies. I do not wish to advise my hon. Friends to support
this new
clause—
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I have heard
many Opposition Members criticise the lack of effectiveness of regional
assemblies. Is it the hon. Lady’s argument that these powers
should not be transferred; that we should simply keep the regional
assemblies as they are and let them carry
on?
Mrs.
Lait:
Heaven forfend that we should keep the regional
assemblies. The Opposition do not believe in regionalised government.
If the hon. Gentleman has not picked that up by now I do not know where
he has been for the last 10
years.
Alun
Michael:
I am about to tell the hon. Lady, who does not
need reinforcing in any aspects of ignorance she might possess, that
the Conservatives would appear to be making a considerable U-turn. She
may have forgotten that they set up urban development corporations and
under the last Labour Government they were given planning powers. I
remember it very well because, although we had a Conservative Secretary
of State he agreed not to pass those on to urban development
corporations but to keep them with local government. It seems there is
a bit of a conversion going on here—in
England.
The
Chairman:
Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not be
lured down this particular alleyway, as it has no relevance at all to
the matter under
discussion.
The
Opposition have been against the regional assemblies from their
inception and we believe that local authorities can carry out many of
the RDAs’ functions, certainly on planning and housing. We
should be moving towards that format for the transfer of powers not
giving further powers to the undemocratic RDAs. We are against their
housing powers, we are against their planning powers and we are against
the transfer of resources. In fact, one of our concerns is the lack of
reassurance that we have had from the Minister that the community
infrastructure levy will not be levied by RDAs, thereby reinforcing
their undemocratic and yet tax-raising nature. This may indeed be the
first
step—
Mr.
Betts:
The hon. Lady seems to be making Conservative
policy up as she goes along this afternoon. I understand her position
to be that the Conservative party is not in favour of the regional
assemblies, is quite happy to see them go and does not believe that
their power should be transferred to the regional development agencies.
I think that her words were that some of what they do could be done by
local councils, which seems to imply that some of what they do would
not be done at local level. There would not be any regional bodies, so
presumably she is going to transfer the power up to national
government.
Mrs.
Lait:
The hon. Gentleman is having a jolly good try at
diverting attention from the purpose of this new clause brought forward
by his own Government which, of course, presages the end of regional
assemblies. Given that he was elected at several elections on the
retention of regional assemblies, the ground is shifting under his feet
as well.
John
Healey:
As we are into our 14th session of scrutiny on
this Bill, will the hon. Lady not accept that what she said a little
earlier was mistaken? There is no power in this Bill for an RDA to
raise the community infrastructure
levy.
The
Chairman:
Order. It is time that we dealt with the new
clause rather than being lured into discussions about what may or may
not be the Conservative party’s policies towards either regional
assemblies or RDAs.
Mrs.
Lait:
I accept your guidance, Sir John. Perhaps we can
have some discussions in the corridors outside afterwards, or in other
forums. However, we come back to the fact that this new clause paves
the way for the RDAs to have planning powers that we do not believe the
RDAs should have. Moreover, the Minister mentioned that the Government
were expecting to have discussions on the transfer of those powers, but
the Local Government Association, in particular, is exceedingly
affronted about their taking place before discussion on the
consultation document has been completed. We are back to the lack of
consultation on the community infrastructure
levy.
It
is inappropriate for this House to agree to the potential for
discussions between the regional assemblies and the RDAs under a
legislative framework before the final structure has been worked out
between the Local Government Association and the Government and indeed
others who have an interest in this area. I seem to remember that not
very long ago there was a bit of excitement when the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government signed a concordat with the leader
of the Local Government Association indicating that local government
initiatives should go forward only after consultation. The Local
Government Association does not believe that the new clause complies
with that concordat. We want to ensure that local government and the
local authorities are not excluded from their rightful place in
deciding where planning powers should go and what is appropriate for
the regional development authorities, which, in my view, with regard to
planning, is very little. As I understand it, many of the regional
development agencies would much prefer not to be involved in the
Government’s top-down direction of planning and housing. These
powers should in fact be transferred to the local
authorities.
I
will draw my remarks to a close by saying that we are very unhappy
about the new clause. There has been insufficient time to think these
matters through in great detail as it has come forward so late, and we
will consider returning to it at a later
stage.
4.15
pm
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I welcome you back to the
Chair for this final session, Sir John, as others have already done. I
agree with much of what the hon. Member for Beckenham has just said,
but there is certainly a difference of opinion between our parties on
the potential for doing things at a regional level. I am sure we would
agree, however, that the Government’s policy over the past 10
years has been a bit of a mess, and that any positives that might have
come from it have been lost and we are left flailing around, trying to
determine what the future should
be.
The
Minister has announced that there will be a major consultation on the
way forward, at which point all sorts of organisations will express an
opinion, not least the local authorities, who lost a lot of their
planning influence when these matters were last addressed. Therefore,
to bring forward this new clause now is a little premature. Just
because an RDA is willing to work towards taking over some planning
responsibility, and just because a regional assembly has a very limited
life span anyway, does not necessarily mean that the policy is in line
with what the people of the region would like to see. Neither the RDAs
nor the regional assemblies as constituted are
the most democratic of bodies, so for them to stitch up a deal between
them in a particular region is not necessarily putting an especially
good gloss on the way forward.
Hon. Members
will have heard from organisations such as the wildlife trusts, who
have great concerns about what the RDAs are set up to do. They are set
up to deal with economic development matters, but planning is a much
wider issue. Sustainable development and environmental concerns come a
long way down their list of responsibilities and core functions. So to
transfer powers from a body that at least, while not democratically
elected in its current form, has a view to all sorts of policy issues,
and hand them over to a body that has an important but fairly limited
focus is not necessarily the right thing to
do.
I
am concerned that we could be moving into the territory that we
discussed earlier on with regard to the planning gains supplement when
we paved the way for something that might never happen. If it is not
likely to happen and we were later to have
legislation—
Chris
Mole (Ipswich) (Lab): Has the hon. Gentleman ever spoken
to a Liberal Democrat member of a regional assembly or a regional
development agency? I ask that because, having been a member of an RDA
and having now been joined in this House by an hon. Member for one of
the Croydon seats who is on the London Development Agency, I have
spoken to plenty of people who welcome the opportunity to be
accountable for their decisions. We must remember that a large
proportion of the regional assemblies are elected councillors
themselves and are designed to bring in other interests as well. So if
there is to be strategic planning, the hon. Gentleman needs to tell us
how he would do that if not in the way in which it is currently
done.
Dan
Rogerson:
The Liberal Democrats believe that there is
scope for regions, where those regions are bottom-up, and where there
is agreement on what those regions should be. I am a somewhat parochial
Member of Parliament representing Cornwall, and there has never been
any consensus within the south-west region that it represents a natural
region. In an e-mail conversation with Councillor Chris White, with
whom the Committee is familiar, he said that he was concerned about
regional assembly staff and their future, which is a very touchy issue.
However, I fear that I am getting away from the issue at
hand.
This
is a paving measure for something that might not be needed. If we are
to have a proper consultation on the way forward, hopefully the ideas
that that will generate will lead to something that is more accountable
and fitting for the needs of sub-regional areas. Let us wait for that
and not add this clause to the
Bill.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Having been told by
the Minister this morning that, unlike Sampson, I had actually gained
power by having my locks shorn, I would like to say my
pennyworth.
The RDAs are
hugely variable. Some are known to be pretty grim. Yorkshire
Forward—the one I have to deal with—started off very
well. It had a very strong strategic focus, but a lot of that has been
dissipated in too many micro-actions as it has been asked to do too
many
things. That may be a general criticism. If I could make one
recommendation it would be for it to stop coming down to the House of
Commons to give enormously expensive tea parties at which three MPs and
sundry Peers from the House of Lords with nothing better to do turn up,
accompanied by a large number of their own staff. The RDA can much
better do it in Leeds, where it is based.
Will the
Minister clarify what is going to happen? He said that new legislation
will ensure the formal transfer of planning powers to the RDAs. Fair
enough; that is clean. He said that the RDAs cannot
“grab” the powers. That is understood. However, where
does the boundary lie between the powers that the regional assembly may
decide to invite the RDA to take, and the formal powers with which they
will be endowed under the new legislation? That is not clear to me. To
what extent could the incremental transfer of competence amount to
something very close to a full exercise of powers in anticipation of
the legislation that will make that formal transfer? I do not like
messy legislation; we have got to ensure that we know where the
boundary lies.
The RDAs are
not accountable. When the Government unveiled the sub-regional strategy
before the summer break, they said that with the regional assemblies
disappearing, mechanisms of accountability would have to be introduced
for the RDAs. However, we still do not know what those mechanisms of
accountability are going to be. At the moment, there is a vacuum. I
have asked the Minister on a number of occasions over the course of
these deliberations whether the Government are still intending to
establish regional Select Committees. Each time he has studiously
avoided referring to the question in his response, so I ask him again:
are the Government still intending to institute regional Select
Committees?
Finally,
when the Government unveiled their sub-regional strategy, I was rather
enthusiastic about it. City regions have a great deal of potential. The
Leeds city region, in my part of the world, would incorporate what used
to be the old west riding part of the north riding and that would make
a great deal of sense. However, I would like the other instrument
engineered to that geometry. In other words, the regional development
agency would conform to the Leeds city region, just as if the south
Yorkshire cities—and the Minister represents one of
them—were to form their own city region, there would be a case
for them having the development agency functions. I would not wish to
create too much of a monolith in the RDAs if it makes sense later to
try to re-engineer the situation, if the idea of a city region takes
off.
We need to do
some thinking about what the constitution of a city region might
be—how would it actually work? The European Union, if I dare say
so, gives some good indication of how big countries and small countries
can get by with voting systems with which they can all live. However,
there is a lot of work to be done before we get to that stage.
Meanwhile, we should be a little cautious before we introduce what may
well be seen as pragmatic measures that would leave very untidy edges.
I would prefer to wait for the Minister to come forward with his formal
consultations and legislation to complete the transfer, whether or not
we think it is a good idea. If it is going to be carried out, I would
like it to be done cleanly so that I can see what is happening. We are
left with a very murky period in the middle of ill-defined
boundaries. I would like to have as many landing lights as possible on
the runway so that I know where I am
going.
John
Healey:
Let me try to deal with the right hon.
Gentleman’s questions, because they were precise and direct,
although he did more generally welcome the direction of the
sub-national review, which goes well beyond the bounds of the new
clause. I welcome that, but will not dwell on it.
I appreciate
the right hon. Gentleman’s desire for clean-cut legislation.
That is why I am at pains to draw a distinction between what is
proposed in the new clause and what may follow in consultation to put
into practice the plan in the sub-national review, which will then be
legislated for. I shall try to answer his questions as directly and
clearly as I can. There is a distinction between what we want to see in
practice during the interim period and what the arrangements might be
after subsequent legislation. The first distinction concerns the
functions relating to planning which a regional assembly can choose to
delegate to a regional development agency. Future legislation might
assume or bestow planning powers on a regional development agency. The
sort of planning functions that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon.
Members are thinking about might include monitoring developments
against a particular plan, producing analytical reports to help develop
a plan and managing events as part of a planning process, such as
consultation events. Those functions are part of the planning
responsibility. However, the responsibility will remain with the
regional
assembly.
The
question of assuming or bestowing planning powers on a regional
development agency would change the nature and the location of the
regional planning body by changing who or what it is. Under the new
clause, the regional planning body is and will remain the regional
assembly. In other words, responsibility for planning will remain with
the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly.
Responsibility for the regional spatial strategy, even though some
contributory functions may be delegated to the RDA, will remain with
the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly.
Responsibility for submitting the regional spatial strategy to the
Secretary of State for final approval will remain with the regional
planning body, which is the regional
assembly.
The
new clause will promote a relatively modest change. I hope that it will
be regarded by members of the Committee as a pragmatic one.
Essentially, it will give RDAs the scope to play a part in the planning
activities and functions of their region. They will be able to benefit
the region in a way that they cannot at the moment because they are not
allowed to do so. For instance, they might be able to employ officers
related to functions that are not currently within their statute. That
is what the new clause is designed to do. It is not a Trojan horse that
will somehow subvert the proper process of consultation which we will
go through before making significant and separate subsequent
legislation. I hope that that explanation gives the cleanliness that
the right hon. Gentleman talked about. On that basis, I hope that hon.
Members accept the new
clause.
Mr.
Curry:
I am grateful to the Minister for what has been a
sensible conversation. If the regional assembly were to invite the RDA
to act as an agency for it to
carry out certain functions, would the RDA need its own staff? Would it
not make sense for the staff who are currently attached to the regional
assembly to carry out those functions to be attached to the RDA for
those
purposes?
4.30
pm
John
Healey:
I am looking solely and straight at the right hon.
Gentleman. The answer is that it may well be. If it were sensible to
transfer that sort of function and personnel, there is currently a
barrier to doing so. The new clause is designed to remove
that.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause read
a Second time, and added to the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 7 February 2008 |