24 Apr 2002 : Column 237

House of Lords

Wednesday, 24th April 2002.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Message from the Queen

Lord Luce: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:

    "I thank you most sincerely for your expression of sympathy in the great loss which I have sustained by the death of my dear mother, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

    "I am greatly moved by your comments about my mother and by the warmth of your remembrance, together with your sincere condolences. Your thoughts and prayers are a source of comfort to my family and to me at this time".

Green Paper on Planning

2.37 p.m.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:

    When they expect to have digested the replies to the Green Paper on planning and to be in a position to announce their decisions.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the consultation period for the planning Green Paper only closed on Monday 18th March. The department has received over 13,000 representations. Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, the Government intend to make a policy statement on the planning system before the Summer Recess.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has digested the lesson of the debate on the Green Paper, which showed the glossy paper, with a picture on page three of the heroic Mr Byers, to be a mixture of the good and the bad—the bad being cleverly sheltered by the good. How can we trust a department which, while affecting to dislike delays and to want to get rid of them, is itself responsible within its own domain for many unnecessary and painful delays? Secondly, how can we trust a department which affects to be concerned about the involvement of people on the periphery, but which never loses an opportunity to take power to the centre, leaving those at the outer rim neglected and out of touch?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the debate in this House was a very good and constructive debate,

24 Apr 2002 : Column 238

and we shall listen to what was said. Many contributions were made on what is a complex issue; namely, how the planning system can be made to work better for everyone involved, including the community.

As to the department being guilty of delays itself when it seeks to make the system quicker, I entirely agree that, over the years, there have been considerable delays in relation to central government dealing with planning applications. That is why, on 2nd April, we set up a new system within central government to deal with those planning applications dealt with by central government, and to seek to do so in half the time that they currently take. It is an ambitious target, but we have to make the system quicker.

Thirdly, centralising is most certainly not the aim of the planning Green Paper—far from it. The intention is to make the system simpler, so that everyone can understand it and access it; and to engage with the community more. Although there is presently a great deal of consultation in the planning system, all too many in the community believe that it bypasses them.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Members on all sides of the House trust him? It is his fellow Ministers in another place about whom we are somewhat more circumspect. Will the Minister explain why county councils—which are, after all, the upper level of democratic government—are to be excluded from producing structure plans? It seems that that role is to be given to unelected regional bodies.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the counties have made a very real contribution to strategic planning. We are keen to ensure that the expertise that they have developed is still involved in the planning system. Structure plans, however, represent one layer of planning which we believe is unnecessary. We believe that what is presently done by the structure plan can be done at regional and sub-regional level and that the counties have an important role to play. But one does not make progress in terms of making the system less complicated and more user friendly by keeping or adding to the number of layers already there.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in telling the House last week that there would be a policy statement before the summer, the Minister refused to confirm that a White Paper would follow the Green Paper to which reference has been made. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that there will be a White Paper? If not, how does he propose to consult and take account of the many views on this controversial set of reforms—and of the view that much improvement could be made without the root and branch reform proposed in the Green Paper?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards consultation, one of the reasons we issued such a detailed series of papers was so that wholesale consultation could take place on the proposed reforms; and so that, if necessary, we could make

24 Apr 2002 : Column 239

changes in relation to the proposals where appropriate. I did not refuse to answer the question. Noble Lords may recall that my noble friend Lord McIntosh prevented me from doing so on the basis that time was up. We have made it clear that a policy statement will be made. It will not be a White Paper, but that does not in any way inhibit consultation between now and then.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that last May the people of this country gave trust to this Government? The Opposition question whether they can trust the Government. It is not a question of whether the Opposition trust the Government—the people of this country have trust in this Government.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Absolutely right, my Lords. The people of this country expected that we would deliver actual changes in the way that they live and that is what we are doing.

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord and other members of the Government try to keep an open mind about extending the right of appeal, which is at present limited to applicants only? There is a great deal of public concern that development takes place that is contrary to local opinion and needs, but parish councils which have often appeared as objectors, are deprived of any right of appeal. Will the Government bear that in mind?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we think it is incredibly important that steps are taken to ensure that the community is properly engaged at the earliest possible stage. We think it is wrong to give third party rights of appeal, because that simply makes the process more legalistic and lawyer-driven. The noble Lord will recall my reference in the recent debate on planning to the experience of Queensland, which introduced a third party right of appeal and then had to produce another Act of the Queensland Parliament to free all the local authorities from the consequences of a precedent-driven system.

Humber Pilots

2.45 p.m.

Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What action has been taken by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch to investigate at least three serious incidents that have occurred on the River Humber since the new pilotage service was introduced on 12th December 2001.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is conducting a full investigation of two recent accidents in the area. One of these was a collision on the River Trent on

24 Apr 2002 : Column 240

25th February; the other was contact by a ferry with the jetty at Immingham on 22nd April. Reports will be published when these investigations are completed.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply, and I declare an interest as chairman of the UK Marine Pilots Association. Is the Minister aware that one serious accident involving a tanker at Immingham jetty could have caused major pollution and fire? Why has that not been investigated by the MAIB? Will he also explain the comment in the report issued yesterday by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on pilotage in the Humber that,


    "Local piloting experience . . . is not indispensable"?

If local knowledge is not necessary, why do we bother with pilots at all?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, pilots require the necessary skill and knowledge to perform their very important job. We need to ensure that appropriate levels of safety are maintained when pilots are involved. My noble friend will know that the document to which he refers—I assume the one entitled The New Humber Pilotage Service—contains a table, at paragraph 8.16, of incidents occurring before and after the change. Those figures do not suggest a significant change in the number of incidents in relation to Humber pilotage. I shall write to the noble Lord on the third incident to which he referred.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the concern that few, if any, of the experienced pilots who were familiar with the Humber and its approaches are employed under the new scheme?


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page