Clause
70Sustainable
development Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Jackson: I have two concerns about the clause on
sustainable development. We touched on the issue in debates on earlier
clauses. I am concerned about the wording. The Campaign to Protect
Rural England strongly makes the point in its briefing that the wording
is not strong enough to be meaningful. The CPRE is making a value
judgment between the previous objectives of regional development
agencies—effectively to drive residential housing development
and disperse significant housing numbers from central
Government—and the wider remit of social and economic growth and
sustainability. Therefore, we do not think that the wording in the
clause is sufficiently robust and, on that basis, do not support
it. To
be helpful, the Minister will also know that the CPRE made the sensible
suggestion in its submission to the Committee that the purposes of an
RDA, as set out in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, should
be amended, so that it is required to contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development in all the work that it undertakes, rather than
only
“where it is
relevant to its area to do so”.
All members of the
Committee will have received that briefing. For those reasons, we think
that there is an alternative route for the Government to look at
sustainability and sustainable development. We do not think that the
clause’s current wording is sufficiently robust and, on that
basis, do not feel disposed to support
it.
Julia
Goldsworthy: I want to add to that briefly. The debate
goes back to a discussion that we had on a previous clause. That
provision seems to have been added as a footnote to the range of things
that the regional strategy needs to consider. The core function of the
regional strategy is to set up policies on sustainable economic growth;
but on development, it only sets out policies in relation to the
development and use of land in the region. Because neither
“sustainable”, nor “sustainability” are
included in its core mission, it is difficult to see how they can have
some additional regard to that. If it is really part of their core
duty, why is that not set out in the earlier clause, rather than just
added in parenthesis at the
end?
Mr.
Curry: I am slightly puzzled by subsection (2). Either
something is sustainable or it is not. I am curious about why we have
that little special reference to “good design”. Which
lobby is responsible? Is this Lord Rogers striking again? I agree with
the comments that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made
on Chelsea barracks, which I thought were absolutely spot on. It is
curious that the clause stresses the importance of good design. How
about stressing the importance of fuel efficiency, of trying to have
combined heat and power or of not having to travel by private vehicle?
Why has that one little point about design suddenly popped up? I would
have thought that either we had sustainability or we did
not.
Mr.
Raynsford: This has all the hallmarks of a subsection
inserted in another place, where I understand that there is a powerful
lobby for design interests, and that perhaps gives a flavour of how
curiously legislation can be
amended.
Ms
Winterton: I hope that the Committee will support this
important clause, which relates to sustainable development. It will be
extremely worrying if the Liberal Democrats, after all they have said
on sustainability, decide to vote against it. It uses the standard
legal formulation used in various pieces of legislation that have been
passed by the House, most recently the Planning Act 2008. As my right
hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested, the design
reference is replicated from the 2008
Act.
Julia
Goldsworthy: Let me make the Liberal Democrat position
clear. We think it better that the provision is included as a separate
clause than not at all, but we are unhappy that it was not set out in
the core function of the strategy in earlier clauses.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
71Review
and revision by responsible regional
authorities
Mr.
Jackson: I beg to move amendment 68, in
clause 71, page 52, line 21, leave
out subsections (4) and
(5).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 111, in clause 71, page 52,
line 21, leave out subsection
(4). Clause
stand
part.
5.15
pm
Mr.
Jackson: I am glad that there is some consensus among
Opposition Members about the aspect of the Bill that deals with review
and revision by responsible regional authorities. At the risk of being
repetitious, I believe that the clause exemplifies the over-mighty
powers of the Secretary of State, especially subsections (4)
and (5). That is why I will be speaking primarily to our
amendments dealing with those subsections, and supporting the Liberal
Democrat amendment to remove one of them, as well as discussing clause
stand part. We believe that if the subsections remain, they will
invalidate the whole clause.
The clause
demonstrates an underlying distrust in local authorities, which are
closer to changes and variations in local economies, industry,
demographic factors, society and so on than regional bodies are. Once
again, the central tenet, as advanced by Ministers, that the Bill is
all about sharing power and devolving it from the top down, is
undermined. The philosophy that the Bill is all about local people and
decisions—it was advanced strongly by the right hon. Member for
Salford (Hazel Blears), whom we miss already—is barely
credible.
We know that
the Government missed an opportunity last July to put flesh on the
bones of community empowerment, which is nowhere contained in the Bill,
but the clause shows that the Secretary of State wants to be involved
in the minutiae and to reach into every nook and cranny of local
decision making, particularly in the area of directions such as draft
revision and the direction under subsection (5) about the timetable and
its content. In our opinion, a generic template or format will be
rolled out across the country, with the ultimate power in Whitehall,
and diversity of provision, ideas and local decision making will be
cast to one side. For those reasons, we will vote for our amendment and
that of the Liberal Democrats, and we will vote against clause stand
part.
Julia
Goldsworthy: Our two amendments are very similar and raise
essentially the same question: once again, who is in charge of the
revision process? It is clear from the clause—particularly from
subsection (4), which the amendments would delete—that the
Secretary of State can reserve the right to require changes at any time
that he or she feels appropriate, and can direct the responsible
regional authority to do so.
It is clear
that the Secretary of State can initiate a review. What I am not as
clear about is which half—whether it is either, one or
both—can initiate a review of the regional strategy. Under the
previous clause, the responsible
regional authority is made up of the regional development agency and the
leaders’ board. We know from clause 71 that the responsible
regional authorities may prepare a draft revision. Must any revision by
agreed by both the leaders’ board and the regional development
agency before the revision can go ahead? Can one of them veto it? If
the regional development agency wanted to revise its strategy and the
leaders’ board said no, who would win that debate? The clause is
not at all clear on that. To understand
the power relationship between the leaders’ board and the
regional development agency, it is important to understand exactly how
the process would work. We are concerned about the extent of the powers
that are being withheld, and held instead by the Secretary of State,
but we also want to understand exactly what the relationship would be
at the level of the responsible regional
authority.
Mr.
Jackson: The hon. Lady touches on an important point.
Clause 71(2) effectively gives the Secretary of State a double lock,
because the Secretary of State has that power and also has indirect
power, having appointed the RDA. Notwithstanding that it might not even
have been constituted by that time, under the previous clause, the
leaders’ board can be outvoted, but its members are the elected
people and they are closer to the action when it comes to revising
regional
strategies.
Julia
Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point.
Again, I draw hon. Members’ attention to the title of the Bill,
which is supposed to be about local democracy. This measure exposes,
again, that more powers are being retained and kept within the gift of
the Secretary of State than are being held by people who are directly
democratically accountable for their decisions. The measure is another
example of the Government talking the talk—saying that they want
to improve participation and accountability—but not walking the
walk.
Ms
Winterton: The clause addresses the issues that the right
hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised when he talked about how long
particular strategies would last. He noted that circumstances might
change, and that is exactly why the clause is in the Bill. It allows
the responsible authority to say, “We believe it is expedient to
revise the strategies that we have at the moment,” so it
addresses his previous point. I am therefore slightly confused as to
why the Opposition want to take this clause
out.
Mr.
Curry: On clause 71(4)(a), I presume, then, that rules and
regulations will specify when the regional body, rather than the
Secretary of State, can decide to make a revision. Is that the point of
that measure? Of the two parts to this clause, does one provide for the
initiative to come from the regional body, and the other for it to come
from the Secretary of State? Have I read it
correctly?
Ms
Winterton: Subsection (4)(a) is saying that, after
consultation, we will set out in regulations where there might be
appropriate points for the Secretary of State to say that there should
be revisions. Subsection (2) sets out our belief that the responsible
authorities should
have the power to revise something if they feel that that is right. Over
and above that, to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for
Falmouth and Camborne, yes, we would want the leaders’ board and
the RDA to trigger a revision jointly, but where there is disagreement,
and one body does not believe that it should be revised, the fall-back
is in subsections (4) and (5), which the Opposition are trying to
remove. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments and to vote for
the clause, which builds into the whole process many of the points that
have been raised.
[Interruption.]
Mr.
Jackson: I was stunned by the eloquence, charm and wit of
the Minister, Mr.
Illsley— [Interruption.]—but, unfortunately, not by
the content of what she said. She and I are seeing a lot of each other
this week, as we debated the much less interesting topic of business
rates last
night. My
final point is that the Minister has not sufficiently addressed the
concerns raised by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne about the
imbalance between the respective centres of power. Earlier, we heard
about the Lilley lacuna. We also have the Goldsworthy
lacuna—
Mr.
Curry: The Goldsworthy gap.
Mr.
Jackson: The Goldsworthy gap. My right hon. Friend the
Member for Skipton and Ripon helps me out in his customary way. There
is an imbalance between the respective centres of power of the RDA, the
Secretary of State and the leaders’
board.
Julia
Goldsworthy: From the Minister’s explanation, the
situation is worse than I had feared. It seems as if the regional
development agency and the leaders’ board could say that they do
not want a revision, and the Secretary of State can impose one. Perhaps
the leaders’ board will say that it does not want one, and the
RDA will say that it does, and the Secretary of State can still impose
it. The presumption is always in favour of a revision, which it seems
will always be within the power of the Secretary of
State.
Mr.
Jackson: Exactly. Let me make a tangible contribution by
way of an example. Suppose there was a west midlands regional strategy
in an area where there were going to be significant job losses in the
future at an important regional employer, such as in automotive
engineering or the manufacturing industry. The leaders’ board
might consider that regional strategy worthy of a rewrite and a
significant revision, in order to take into account the economic,
social and demographic factors consequent to that significant
macro-economic change, which had perhaps involved the loss of 5,000 or
6,000 jobs. The Secretary of State, working with the regional
development agency in the west midlands, might decide that that rewrite
was not appropriate and that there were other priorities. The
Conservative party believes that the important flexibility is not built
into the clause. For that reason, we are not minded to support
it. Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
40] Question
accordingly negatived.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
| 
