---

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his helpful tone and remarks. I do not entirely follow the logic of what he said but it is encouraging to know that he supports the existing legislation. However, it seems to me that, in setting up this completely new framework of planning, it would be desirable to have some cross-reference to the earlier statutes. That is all I am seeking to do. I do not seek to alter anything; merely to have that in the text which will be so important for the future.

I, of course, do not agree with the unkind remarks made in the Times newspaper about the Minister. I am sorry to hear about that.

The Minister made some friendly remarks about his colleague, the Minister, Mr Alun Michael. I sent to Mr Michael a copy of the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, a week or so ago, hoping that this whole intervention in the debate would be unnecessary. But Mr Michael certainly has not replied to me.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 877

One should perhaps look at this issue in a slightly broader context. There are wider interests than the precise wording of government circulars or even ministerial speeches. I refer to the interest of the British public in the protection of environmentally precious places, including beautiful landscape. It matters a great deal to public opinion, in my judgment.

I do not often get on to a high horse when addressing your Lordships, but I regret that I find it necessary to do so on this occasion. If the Government think that they will attract public support by encouraging economic development in national parks—which is what Mr Michael is proposing, in his own words—they are facing a grave political shock. I believe that the opposition—indeed hostility—they will provoke will surprise them.

Let us not forget that the conservation of these beautiful places began with some of our great 19th century cultural innovators, people such as William Morris and Ruskin, to name only two.

There are places which are important to us as individuals. The best expression I know of this in literature is contained in the poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins entitled Binsey Poplars, in which he describes with sorrow the destruction of his favourite trees. Let me quote some lines which refer to the destruction of nature. Hopkins wrote:

"Where we, even where we mean

To mend her we end her,

When we hew or delve:

After-comers cannot guess the beauty been".

That is the kernel of the case. I fully share Hopkins's sentiments.

Let me give a brief illustration from my own life. I have had a particular affection since childhood for North Yorkshire, which I visited regularly as a boy and which sustained me in moments of difficulty. On my mantelpiece at home there are two photographs. The first is a picture of me and our eldest son on the summit of Pen-y-Ghent in the 1960s. We had just returned from a difficult and unsatisfactory assignment in Latin America, where circumstances had not worked in our favour. On returning home after two and a half years of unhappy and unrewarding toil, I knew that I needed a few days in North Yorkshire to recover my balance. It worked. The photograph records that moment. The second picture next to it, taken 20 years later in exactly the same place, shows the same son, this time accompanied by his eldest child on the summit of Pen-y-Ghent. I am sure that many of our citizens have similar bonds with particular beautiful places that enjoy the protection of the law at present. We should not connive at their development for the sake of currently fashionable causes.

I am grateful to the Minister for what he said in a reassuring speech, but one of his colleagues is speaking in a very different way. As we are setting up an entirely new arrangement for regional planning, it would help to insert these words into the Bill. I therefore wish to seek the opinion of the House.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 878

4.25 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Bridges, L. [Teller]
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chorley, L. [Teller]
Clement-Jones, L.
Cobbold, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Dearing, L.
Deedes, L.
Denham, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Elton, L.
Fookes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkham, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Listowel, E.
Marlesford, L.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Naseby, L.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Patten, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Rees, L.
Renton, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Sandwich, E.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Slim, V.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Swinfen, L.
Tebbit, L.
Tenby, V.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhatia, L.
Blackstone, B.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fitt, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lucas, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mishcon, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Parekh, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Rooker, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Walpole, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 879

4.36 p.m.

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 6, line 40, at end insert—

"( ) Subsection (4) does not apply for the purposes of section 6(3)(a)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small technical amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that in preparing the draft regional spatial strategy revisions a regional planning body has regard to relevant national policy issued by any Secretary of State. Examples of such policy include the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the waste strategy; and the UK sustainable development strategy on modern ports—a UK policy. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Survey of area]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 7, line 15, at end insert—

"( ) the type and extent of demand for housing and commercial property;"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not going to earn myself any brownie points with Mr Jenkins or the CPRE for moving this amendment. This is very much in response to the Barker review, which I view with enormous positivism. I think that it is a great step forward in our view of development and property. At last we are looking at giving a voice to the have-nots as well as to the haves. For far too long the whole planning system has leant in the direction of protecting the interests of those who already own or have interests in property while paying far too little attention to those who wish to have interests in property, by which I mean mostly those who would like houses of the kind they wish to live in.

This is not the time or the place—I hope that we will have a time and place—for an extensive conversation on the Barker review. I should very much look forward to a debate on that. One of the things that she calls for on several occasions in her report is a better evidence base. What she most wants evidence on is evidence of demand—what kind of houses people want, where they want them, what the trend of house prices and

25 Mar 2004 : Column 880

other indicators has been—so that planning authorities can take decisions with a proper view of what it is their public are expecting them to provide.

I know that this amendment is not necessary—the Government can achieve this under current provisions of the Bill—but I very much hope that I can get from the Minister an assurance that, in response to the Barker review, steps will be taken to gather the evidence that she wants to see. I beg to move.

---