Mr.
Jackson: It is a shame that the hon. Member for Liverpool,
Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is not able to speak to his amendment;
the Whips have no doubt intervened to ensure that he does other things
on a Tuesday morning. I heartily concur with the views of the hon.
Member for North Cornwall. I was remiss in not fully quoting from
the public service agreement delivery agreement 7, which seeks to
encapsulate the meaning of sustainable economic growth as
“economic growth
that can be sustained and is within environmental limits, but also
enhances the environment and social welfare, and avoids greater
extremes in future economic
cycles.” We
concur with
that. We
should also not disregard the importance of the Sustainable Communities
Act 2007, which had cross-party support, and in which the hon. Member
for Falmouth and Camborne played a significant part. On that basis, we
will support the amendment if it is pushed to a vote.
Ms
Winterton: I will be very brief. Essentially,
clause 70 requires the regional strategy to take account of
sustainable development principles and to be subject to a
sustainability appraisal. It applies to all policies in the regional
strategy, and it would be superfluous to add a specific reference to
land use and development. Amendment 72 would have a negligible effect,
other than to make explicit what is required by clause 74(1)(a). For
that reason, I hope that the Opposition will not press their
amendments.
Dan
Rogerson: I am not surprised by the Minister’s
response. In my few years in the House, it has been usual practice for
Ministers to say that the legislation covers the issue that we have
raised, even if it is sometimes hard to find the key definition that we
are looking for.
Mr.
Paul Goodman (Wycombe) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman
agree that the Minister has been putting two arguments simultaneously?
When it suits her, she has said that the duties in Opposition
amendments should not be included in the Bill. At other times, she has
said that it is essential that duties on local authorities are included
in the Bill in extraordinary detail.
Dan
Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point as
usual.
The Minister
indicated that we should consider these matters under clause 74(1)(a),
which refers to
“national polices
and advice contained in guidance which has been given by the Secretary
of State”.
I do not think that
people will feel that that is explicit enough. That guidance may
change, and there is a whole range of guidance. The issues that we are
discussing, particularly with regard to climate change, are of such
overriding importance that I cannot see a reason for not including our
proposals in the Bill.
Mr.
Raynsford: My understanding of what my right hon. Friend
the Minister said is that amendment 72 was covered by clause 74(1)(a),
which refers to having regard to
“national
polices...contained in guidance...given by the Secretary of
State”, which
is exactly in line with the thinking in amendment 72.
However, will the hon. Gentleman tell me what on earth amendment 100,
which inserts the word “sustainable” in line 16, does to
add to the duty that we are discussing? The duty is absolutely clear
and precise, and all the responsibilities in this part of the Bill are
covered. The duty is not obscure or difficult to find—it is
pretty clear. Clause 70 says:
“The
responsible regional authorities and the Secretary of State must
exercise their functions under this Part in relation to the regional
strategy...with the objective of contributing to the achievement
of sustainable development.”
That seems pretty clear.
I cannot see what on earth the point is of adding another clause or
subsection to the Bill to say exactly the
same.
Dan
Rogerson: The difference is that “contributing
to” is fairly vague. One could contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development in a fairly minor way and satisfy the
provisions. The importance of these issues necessitates putting our
proposals where we propose in the amendment and saying that the key
purpose of any regional strategy is to secure sustainable
development.
Definitions of
the word “sustainable” are commonly accepted, including
in the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. I would be far more
comfortable and reassured if we included sustainable development as a
primary purpose of the regional strategy, rather than saying,
“The regional strategy is there to look at economic development.
In passing, it may contribute to other issues.” That is just not
good enough.
Mr.
Jackson: I hesitate to speak for the hon. Member for
Liverpool, Walton, who is absent, but my recollection is that he
specifically told the Minister on Second Reading that he was
endeavouring to include the amendment in the Bill because he had no
idea of the real meaning and practical effect of sustainability in his
area—the north-west. The issue is self-evident. For that reason
alone, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment should
stand.
Dan
Rogerson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention
and for those closing remarks. It is clear that there are different
views across the Committee. None the less, many hon. Members feel that
the amendment deals with an important principle so I wish to press it
to a
vote. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
34] Question
accordingly negatived.
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 101, in
clause 67, page 50, line 35, at
end insert— ‘(9) Prior to
the regional strategy being approved for a region it must be passed by
a vote at all participating authorities within the
region.’.
We have
discussed how agreements reached at regional level, as defined by the
Government, are seen as binding on local communities by their
democratically elected authorities. A similar gap has emerged with
regional spatial strategies. It is clear that up and down the country,
there are differences of opinion among local residents about what
regional spatial strategies propose and among local authorities about
what is appropriate for their areas. As local authorities are the
democratically elected representatives of their areas, it would be more
democratic to have a framework through which local authority members
can vote on whether a regional strategy should come into
force. I
am sure that the word “veto” will pass the
Minister’s lips in her response because the amendment would hand
a veto to individual local authorities over regional spatial
strategies. However, if a democratically elected local authority feels
so strongly that what is being proposed over its head for the
Government’s idea of a region is inappropriate, there ought to
be a means by which it can call people back to the table to enter into
further negotiations to ensure that the strategy is appropriate to the
needs of people across the
region.
Mr.
Curry: What would happen if one small council were to say
no? In the south-east, there are 77 councils. The basis on which it
would say no would almost certainly be pressure from inhabitants about
proposed housing plans. How many would have to say no and how much
renegotiation would have to take place? What would happen if the other
side of the argument did not want to budge? I do not like the concept,
but if we have it, we must try to make it
work.
Dan
Rogerson: The right hon. Gentleman is responding to the
issue of a veto that I raised. Part of the problem, as he has pointed
out, is how difficult it is to conceive of the south-east as a region
and to set regional priorities that would be appropriate to all local
authorities across the area. The amendment is what the Minister
referred to earlier as a probing amendment. I wanted to prompt a
discussion about what role democratically elected members of local
authorities should have in approving regional
strategies.
Mr.
Curry: If the hon. Gentleman wants to build in a
safeguarding mechanism, would it not have been more sensible to propose
a weighted vote that depends on the proportion of the population of the
region represented by each local authority? That is analogous to the
European Union objective. That would be a forum for renegotiation, but
there would have to be links between rural and urban areas to force it
to
happen. 11.45
am
Dan
Rogerson: We could move into the type of debates that we
held in our consideration of the Business Rate Supplements Bill about
double key votes and those sorts of issues. However, the purpose of the
amendment is to prompt a discussion about what role democratically
elected members might have in the approval of the regional
strategy. The
Bill sets out a role for leaders’ boards, which are an attempt
to replace regional assemblies. Regional assemblies, because they are
unelected and because they have all sorts of co-opted people on them,
have proved to be an experiment that has not worked; the Government
seem to acknowledge that with their plan for ending them.
Leaders’ boards are another attempt to put in place some role
for local authorities in this sector of regional planning. Again,
however, they are somewhat limited. People elect
councillors in their areas in the hope that they will be able to take
decisions on their behalf. The democratic gloss that has been put on
this regional policy is that leaders’ boards will be in place,
but people will not feel reassured that leaders’ boards are
either powerful enough or sufficiently legitimate to carry out that
role in regional planning. The Minister has also talked about Regional
Select Committees in the past and the role that they have in scrutiny.
However, the Liberal Democrats have highlighted the fact that there are
weaknesses with that system too.
A number of
solutions have been proposed. I agree with the Minister that ultimately
the only solution is to have a democratically elected tier of regional
government in areas where there is public support for that system. In
passing, I could mention that there is still a petition somewhere in
Downing street with 50,000 signatures that calls for a Cornish assembly
which the Minister might like to look at in her new role.
We come back
to our earlier debate about whether or not these regions actually work.
From my point of view, I do not think that we will ever move to a stage
of having democratically elected regional assemblies unless the people
in each region feel that that is the region in which they belong. That
is a problem that our earlier debate attempted to overcome, but I will
not revisit that debate now, Mr. Amess, as I am sure that
you would rule me out of order if I did so.
The amendment
is a probing amendment to prompt discussion about whether or not there
should be a greater role for local authority members in considering
these regional strategies, because they are the people who are held to
account by the electorate, as Members of Parliament are, yet neither
local councillors nor MPs have a significant role in the planning
process as set out in the Bill. I do not think that leaders’
boards go far enough.
Mr.
Jackson: We were getting on well with the Liberal
Democrats, but I am afraid that we will have to disagree with them on
this issue. For the Liberal Democrats, it again comes down to their
desire to square the circle. They find themselves between a rock and a
hard place, because they are committed to regional government and the
diktat of the European Union, which of course was the genesis of
regional policy, but at the same time they have to pay lip service to
the local authority, local autonomy and democracy. They are therefore
trying to square the circle, by supporting a regional strategy while at
the same time effectively encouraging councils to veto the regional
strategy, as it is set out in the legislation.
The Liberal
Democrats cannot have it both ways. Our heart is with their desire for
local democracy, but the amendment is effectively a wrecking amendment,
because the fact is that it is completely impractical. There are large
numbers of authorities in the south-east, the south-west and other
regions. Even if one accepted the Minister’s premise that
business needs certainty and the capacity to make long-term decisions
at regional
level—a premise that has not been demonstrably proved and that
will not be proved by Ministers—the amendment goes against that
premise. How can that kind of long-term planning and certainty be
possible when, for instance, 77 local authorities in the south-west
have been invited to impose a veto? The amendment is impractical, but
we are sympathetic to parts of the argument made by the hon. Member for
North Cornwall. We will be sitting on our hands regarding this
particular amendment. Ms
Winterton: With your permission, Mr. Amess, my
instinct is that I will be able to address more fully some of the
issues later, particularly the leaders’ board, which is dealt
with in the next clause, and the process of approving the strategies,
which is dealt with in clause 75. In the meantime, the
problem with the amendment is that it would duplicate provisions
elsewhere in this part of the Bill, and would fundamentally change the
partnership approach, which we devised as a result of extensive
consultation last year. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to
oppose
it.
Dan
Rogerson: I said in my opening remarks that I did not
intend to press the amendment to a vote: I simply sought an opportunity
to raise the issue. There are serious questions to be asked about the
democratic accountability of the set-up proposed in the Bill, but as
the Minister says, we will discuss that at a later stage, so I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
| 
