| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The water companies, the Environment Agency and the builders are more than happy with the outcome. They are on course to deliver a visionary international city, if we can get the trains stopping and starting there again. It was dealt with adequately in the context of the Sustainable Communities Plan. It is not as though a plan was imposed for all these houses which no one knew about and then it was realised that there was not enough water. That was not the case. All those issues were known to a greater or lesser degree. Anyone who said, “It was a surprise: we did not know about it”, frankly was not doing their job, which applies equally to everyone, whether they were in the water companies, the Environment Agency or anywhere else. There was a full discussion.
The communities plan arrived almost three years after the growth areas were set out in the 2001 plan. We were putting a greater vision on the flesh and making the point—on page 47—that none of this growth would take place unless the infrastructure was
13 Oct 2006 : Column 523
I have said to this House and to committees elsewhere that if they want to do an inquiry into the Sustainable Communities Plan, they should do it, but they should read it first. Now I will give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. My question follows what he was saying: At what stage—is it before there is any concept of it?—in the planning of big, new housing complexes are those organisations to which he referred involved? Is it before the planning is completed and when it is just an idea at the back of someone’s mind? He is right. There is great confusion and I would be glad for some clarity.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there need not be confusion, but I will not go into great detail. Delivery vehicles have been set up in all the growth areas, some of which are statutory, like the development corporations, while others are voluntary, sometimes led by the local authority and involving all the players. All of the four particular growth areas have to go through a public examination when they have decided where, broadly, growth will take place. So there is a full examination in public by independent inspectors who do not come from the department. The department has to give its evidence to the public examination. There is a full, transparent and open process.
When a planning application for an individual site is submitted by a developer, whether it is the development corporation or an individual developer, the normal planning process kicks in, whether that is done by the local authority, or, in the case of a statutory body, the statutory development corporation. There are no shortcuts in the normal planning process. Moreover, along with full planning consideration, long-term discussions are going on into a 25-year scenario for the growth areas. But these myths come about and are borne about by some people—I do not say anyone in this House—who basically do not want the houses built in the first place. That is what it is really about: not accommodating houses for local people so that their children and grandchildren have to disappear to other regions of the country. That is because most of the growth in the south-east comes from indigenous growth.
13 Oct 2006 : Column 524
I have done less than justice to colleagues’ speeches, but I hope that I have got the message of the debate. The Government certainly have. We find the report very valuable except for one or two points. Some of the criticisms might be unfounded, but we are at one when we say that water management is a serious issue. The Government cannot do it all. We need to work with our partners. We have a legacy of poor investment and a legacy of poor understanding which we have to address, but on a whole range of issues I am fairly confident that action is being taken and we can make progress. I would be more than happy if, in the fullness of time, the committee wanted to revisit the issue. That is what needs to happen. The checks and balances on government by way of scrutiny by Select Committees should not just be one-off reports. Eighteen months or two years down the line, the committees should ask how much progress has been made. That is where real parliamentary accountability comes from.
I will try to distil the points raised which I have not been able to touch on and write a general note to noble Lords.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. We have heard from noble Lords on all sides of the House, including a memorable maiden speech. We recognise that as a country we need to do better on water management. That is not just for the Government but across the whole range, and we have heard much advice from all sides on how that should be achieved. I thank the Minister for his vigorous response on behalf of the Government and while I cannot speak for the rest of the committee, I can give a personal assurance that I will visit Sandwell. I would be very interested to see the recycling plant there.
The Minister also suggested that the committee should revisit this issue. I think we will take him up on that; indeed, we intended to do it anyway. Some interesting issues have been raised both in the debate and in the Minister’s response and we would certainly want to come back on those in a year or two. I thank all who have participated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Civil Aviation Bill
The Bill was returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with a Lords amendment agreed to with an amendment; and with a Commons amendment to which the Lords had disagreed not insisted on; the Commons amendments were ordered to be printed.
- House adjourned at eleven minutes past three o’clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |