| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister said that in her letter she had said councils would not be able to meet their housing targets by doing such things, but that is not how I read it at all. It seemed to me that she was saying that they were in some way meeting sub-regional spatial strategy housing targets. Certainly, the only reason why the councils are proposing to build in north Hertfordshire is that they believe it will help them to meet their housing targets. I shall look very closely at what she said, and if they are acting on a misapprehension I shall draw that to their attention and they will promptly stop. However, I fear that that is not the case. My analysis-and therefore the need for the new clause-has been endorsed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England as well as most
local conservation bodies that want this beautiful area of the country protected and want to prevent a precedent from being created that would undoubtedly be followed in many other areas of the country.
This Bill is called the "Local Democracy Bill". It aims to promote local democracy. I submit that we cannot have democracy without accountability. If one council can build in another council's area and therefore not be responsible to those affected by its action, that is a negation and denial of democracy. I hope that the Minister will think again and will recognise that the new clause would strengthen the democratic nature of her Bill as well as ending an unsustainable loophole in the law. I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on the new clause in due course.
Mr. Heald: I want to speak briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Planning should be about good planning. If we consider what is happening in our area-my constituency neighbours that of my right hon. Friend to the east-we can see that good planning is not what is happening. The Government have said that they want Luton to expand and they also want Stevenage to expand. These towns are very close to one another. They are not big cities with great hinterlands or anything like that. If that is to happen-although I think it is a grave mistake-it has to be done in the most careful way.
There are proposals for a massive development west of Stevenage, and Luton council has said, "Yes, let's have a massive development east of Luton." Our part of Hertfordshire could become like the west midlands-each community will blend with the next, and we will end up with a complete sprawl. The Government should be ashamed of what is happening to a wonderful county like Hertfordshire when they have had all these years to produce a good planning system.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is bringing forward a sensible proposal that would stop a council like Luton doing something as foolish as closing the gaps between itself, the Stevenage conurbation and the town of Hitchin. Why should it be able to do that, especially as no proper consultation has been undertaken? I spoke to the chief executive of North Hertfordshire district council about this only recently. The council has had to complain to Luton about the fact that it has not been involved in any sensible discussion. It is an example of terribly poor planning, and I therefore support new clause 1.
Mr. Gummer: I also support new clause 1, even though the seat that I represent is not under threat at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has pointed out that the Bill sets a precedent that could be used by councils unable to meet the housing targets imposed on them from outside. In principle, therefore, I want the new clause to be accepted, but I am sorry that he did not take his argument one stage further.
My right hon. Friend argued that the lack of democratic accountability means that it is not proper for a local council to build in another council's area. I want to go further and say that the problem with our current housing arrangements is that that democratic accountability
has been removed, with the result that the number of houses to be built in any given place is decided centrally. That figure is then sent through bodies that somehow purport to be representative, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) noted, and then imposed on the duly elected local authority in a way that is unacceptable.
We must seriously consider returning to local authorities the power to ensure that other authorities do not interfere with them in that way, which would mean abolishing the undemocratic planning committees at regional level. Regions do not exist. I live in east Suffolk, which has no connection at all with Luton, and yet we are included in the same eastern region. That is madness. We even have a Select Committee to discuss a region that does not exist, and we also have a Minister: she represents Stevenage, whose location in the eastern region is merely a figment of the Government's imagination.
The idea that the regions set up by the Government do any good at all is wholly fictitious. The only set-up more stupid involves the strategic health authorities of the NHS, which do nothing but blame the Government or the local primary care trust.
Another problem with the regions is that there is an inevitable tension between the need for growth and development on the one hand, and the need for the protection and defence of the environment on the other. The local electorate must be able to defend their turf but, equally, a council that finds the right place in its area for development must be able to get some benefit from that development.
This Bill is meant to be about local democracy, but I am sorry that it does not provide that local authorities should retain for 10 years the business rates and council tax accruing from any new development, in addition to their normal central Government grant. That would give local authorities a reason to benefit from development decisions. At present, they face significant disadvantages, as it is always true that residents of an area already have votes, while those who might wish to live there do not.
6.15 pm
As new clause 1 suggests, a sensible development system would require that a local authority that has no place, standing or position in an area could not impose its housing obligations on that area. I am only sorry that the new clause does not cover the circumstances that arise when the local authority that does control an area makes a choice in favour of development. Our system does not allow a council in that position to benefit from that choice, and so such matters are not debated properly with local electorates.
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): I agree with much of what my right hon. Friend says, just as I agreed with much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said earlier, but is there not a slight danger with the path that he is going down? I am talking about the risk of overdevelopment. Especially in these troubled economic times, is there not a great incentive for a local authority that owns land to get a lot of money and, going forward, income from rates? Could not that be detrimental to the character of some of the towns that my hon. Friends here represent?
Mr. Gummer: I disagree fundamentally with my hon. Friend. First, when development does take place, the problem in our society is underdevelopment rather than overdevelopment. The most dense housing area in Britain is the Royal Crescent in Bath. Our problem is bad development, not overdevelopment or underdevelopment. Bath and Monte Carlo are two examples of places where people want to live, and both areas have been built in a dense way, but sensibly. When that happens, it is possible to meet the density requirements, but unfortunately we have not insisted on a quality standard for local development.
I feel strongly about what my hon. Friend said for a second reason, which is that I believe in local democracy. I am fed up with people at the centre telling local authorities what is good for them. If local authorities are given powers, they will often make mistakes-of course they will, but central Government usually do. In my experience, it is important to spread decision making around, as people who are close to decisions make fewer mistakes than those at the centre who always think that they know best.
It is time for us at the centre to begin to recognise again that if the authority in Manchester wants to carry through a series of policies that we disapprove of-as long as it is paying for those policies itself, and I am suggesting that there should be some areas of additional payment-it should make the decision and put the case to its electorate. That is better than having a lot of faceless bureaucrats at regional or Government level who believe that they know how many seats there ought to be on a bus in Manchester-a matter of supreme unimportance to them but of great importance to the people of Manchester.
Dr. Starkey: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), I, too, was the leader of a local authority-although a much smaller one-when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister. I feel moved to welcome his Pauline conversion to local democracy, which is all the more unexpected for not having been expressed in the directions that he gave as a Minister, of which I was on the receiving end. However, I welcome his conversion and I hope that, in the unlikely circumstance that he becomes a Minister again, he does not revert to his old dirigiste tendencies.
Mr. Gummer: As so often, the hon. Lady has a partial memory of history. She forgets that local authorities did not use their own money to do what they wanted, but precepted on national taxation. We had to stop situations whereby Newcastle, for example, charged John Lewis rates that were four times per square foot more than in London-
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady who provoked him will appreciate that we are now straying away from the matter before the House.
Mr. Gummer:
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall explain that my view of local government democracy-as put forward in the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, to which I am addressing my remarks-is that local government should have the right to develop in its own
area, using its own resources. I want to extend those resources. However, local government does not have the right to make a decision and demand that somebody centrally-without consideration-should pay for that decision, outwith the normal sums of money that come to a locality. That is why the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and I may not have got on well in those days. However, I shall not carry on down that route, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Local democratic choice demands the willingness of central Government to give powers away. I find that my colleagues are very keen on subsidiarity from Brussels to Westminster, but they are less keen on subsidiarity from Westminster to the town hall or county hall. People in the town hall or county hall are very keen on subsidiarity from Government to them, but if one suggests subsidiarity from them to the parish council they get extremely annoyed.
I hope that this Parliament can be the first Parliament for a long time to believe in real subsidiarity. We should do in Brussels the things that we can do only in Brussels-there are many of them and they are valuable. We should do in Westminster the things that we can do only in Westminster, and we should insist on doing the things we do not need to do in Brussels. But we in Westminster have to believe in subsidiarity and this "Local Democracy etc." Bill has little to do with local democracy, for in the end, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley rightly says, it does not give local authorities power to make their own decisions-indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West is even suggesting that we should guide them in the provision of public lavatories. If they cannot deal with their own public lavatories, we cannot trust them to deal with anything.
Ms Rosie Winterton: We have covered a vast number of issues in the debate on this group of amendments. I shall start by addressing the last issue raised by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and I will reiterate what I said to him in my letter of 25 June. I think I may have said "July" previously, for which I apologise. [ Interruption. ] I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not disappear at this point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is replying directly to the right hon. Gentleman and it would be helpful if the Whips did not interfere for a few moments.
Ms Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
"You asked for reassurance that if particular Councils were to apply for planning permission for housing development in another district and permission were to be granted, the houses that they built in that other district area would not count towards the target, which has been set for their own area or areas.
I can certainly assure you that any houses permitted and built in a particular area can only count towards the planned housing supply for that particular area as set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy...and Local Development Framework relevant to that area."
I should like to offer the right hon. Gentleman a meeting with me and officials to discuss the particular issues that he has raised. I know that those issues have been causing him ongoing concern, so if he feels it would be helpful for us to explain the processes in a little more detail, I am happy to do so.
On the public toilet provision amendment, the Select Committee report was extremely helpful and I was glad that it congratulated the Government on some of the actions that have been taken so far, although I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) would like them to go further.
To pick up on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), I shall describe in a little more detail how the Bill will help to reinforce the duty on councils to consult. There are also mechanisms, such as petitions, whereby people can raise local issues. That goes to the heart of some of the debate on the role of central Government in setting strategic direction and on how we expect local councils to respond to issues raised by the community. I venture to suggest that the public toilet provision falls into the category of central Government trying to work with organisations and local authorities-as in our strategic guide-to say, "This is how you can have good provision."
We have also issued further guidance on how to set up community toilet schemes. Given that the Government have shown how that can be done by working in partnership with local authorities, it would be possible under the Bill for local people to say, "We do not think the provision of public toilets is adequate," and if a petition was presented to the council, it would have a duty to respond.
We need to get the balance right, and I should not like my hon. Friend to think that we have been sitting on our hands-so to speak-in relation to public toilet provision. We have been supporting the Changing Places campaign and we are working with the Changing Places Consortium to review the British standard and consider the needs of people with complex and multiple disabilities, to which she referred. On 13 January, Baroness Andrews, then a Minister, met representatives from the consortium on 13 January to discuss the progress of the campaign and investigate how we could help to highlight the consortium's work, building on the review of the British standard relating to the design of sanitary facilities to meet the needs of disabled people.
In June, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin), attended the learning disability week parliamentary reception to celebrate this year's theme, "Changing Places, Changing Lives". We have also made a commitment to review the guidance that supports part M of the building regulations and to consider whether it needs to be updated to include improved guidance on specialised facilities.
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West that we have looked at the issue very closely. Indeed, I was discussing her report with officials only this morning and we went into some detail about the bits where she had endorsed and praised the Government and the bits where we needed to go further.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) spoke about the loo of the year award, which was won by-I apologise for not being able to remember.
Mr. Chope: Christchurch borough council.
Ms Winterton: Indeed. The British Toilet Association's awards are a good way of highlighting best practice in this important area.
I hope that with those reassurances, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West will withdraw her new clause.
6.30 pm
I return to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) about risk assessment in the context of mutual assurance. We undertook an assessment of risk as part of the impact assessment, which has been published today. The mutual will need to be authorised, supervised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority, like any other insurer. It will also need to operate in accordance with the FSA handbook and meet all FSA, Government, risk management and reporting requirements. I emphasise that these are enabling powers. Local authorities will need to ensure that any proposed arrangement meets the duty of best value and improved services for their communities.
It is unlikely, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that all local authorities will wish to establish or participate in an insurance mutual. We carried out research in the Department which suggested that potential take-up is influenced by the scale of authorities' perceived risks and their prior claim record. The research suggested that fire and rescue authorities were and still are keen to implement a mutual insurance approach.
The hon. Gentleman asked me when guidance will be issued. I confess that in the course of this fascinating debate, I have forgotten which new clause he was referring to. However, I assure him that the guidance will be a matter for regulations. I suspect that he was referring to guidance in relation to mutual insurance. We will be consulting on it, and qualifying authorities will have to have regard to any guidance issued and to any documents specified in regulations, such as Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy guidance.
On the wider issues related to the power of general competence, as I said in the debate, we committed to considering local authority powers following the recent consultation. The issues are complex and need careful consideration. The Opposition amendments may still preclude speculative activities that are aimed at the financial well-being of the authority. This is important, as the Court of Appeal ruled that such activities did not
"readily obtain sanction by use of a general expression, the wording of which does not easily bear upon such activities".
We want to consider those issues, and we have consulted on the matter. In the Bill we want to correct the issue of mutual insurance, and at a later date we will deal with some of the other issues that have been raised.
On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) and by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), it is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman made such a strong point about regional development agencies. I know that my hon. Friend has been sceptical about RDAs for some time. I hope that I have been able to reassure him that the new arrangements for the RDA board and the leaders board will inject the democratic accountability that he has discussed.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |