| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Clause 169 [Blighted land: Scotland]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 402 to 404:
404: Clause 169, page 89, line 40, after “(c. 58);” insert—
““gas transporter” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (see section 7(1) of that Act);”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 169, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Patel of Bradford moved Amendment No. 405:
405: After Clause 170, insert the following new Clause—
“Grants for advice and assistance: Scotland
(1) The Secretary of State may make grants for the purpose of assisting any person to provide advice and assistance in connection with any matter which is related to the application of this Act to Scotland.
20 Oct 2008 : Column 998
(2) The Secretary of State may, as respects any such grant, provide that it is to be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 405 and 458 give the Secretary of State the power to make grants to assist with the provision of advice and assistance in connection with any matter that is related to the application of the Planning Bill to Scotland. The new clause inserted is equivalent to Clause 170 of the Bill, which relates to the giving of grants for advice and assistance in relation to projects in England and Wales. Clause 170 was included in the Bill so that grants could be given to bodies such as Planning Aid in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects. There would be concerns about fairness if people in some parts of the UK had access to advice and assistance in connection with an application for development consent or a proposed national policy statement but people in other parts of the UK who were similarly affected did not. Amendments Nos. 405 and 458 resolve that problem.
Amendment No. 456 relates to Schedule 12. The amendment modifies Clause 163(3) to (5) in so far as those subsections apply to Scotland. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: I am grateful to see the Government’s consideration that the Scottish planning authorities might need some assistance, although as I have followed the Bill—I must apologise that my stamina was not up to that of those who were here when these matters were considered around midnight last Tuesday—it has seemed to me that much of what might happen in Scotland is actually excluded in the way the Government have drawn it up. Obviously it is nice to have an umbrella clause to protect any assistance that might need to be given, but it struck me as strange under Clause 13, where the Bill allows for any legal challenge, that Scotland is excluded. I know the law is different in Scotland, but a great many of the issues that are included in the national infrastructure are for non-devolved issues. At some points Scotland will be involved, and I am grateful that it is being taken care of in this case.
The Earl of Caithness: I, too, was fascinated by this clause, and I would like a little more clarification from the Minister. Subsection (1) of the new clause in Amendment No. 405 says:
Am I “any person” if I live in Scotland, and what sort of grant am I entitled to?
Lord Patel of Bradford: The grant is most likely to go to something like Planning Aid for Scotland. The information is to give people an opportunity to find out information about the project where they normally would not have any. This will allow groups that are excluded and traditionally would not have access to that information—say, minority groups, Travellers, people on low incomes or unemployed people—to have free advice, but certainly would not benefit anyone who was commercially involved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]
Clause 171 [Delegation of functions of regional planning bodies]:
20 Oct 2008 : Column 999
Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 407:
407: Clause 171, page 91, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) Notwithstanding any arrangements made under subsection (1), the RPB retains the final authority and responsibility for the preparation of all regional planning documents.”
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I believe that I am reflecting significant concern that exists out there in the real communities about delegating any of the functions of the regional planning body wholly to the regional development agencies. The clause as it stands seeks to give RPBs the ability to make arrangements to delegate to the RDAs the exercise of any of their functions. I shall focus on the specific function of the production of the regional spatial strategy, a key regional planning document. Other noble Lords have identified other functions that give them similar cause for concern.
RDAs, unlike the RPBs, lack democratic accountability. Their decision-making boards are composed only of appointed members, and this delegation could well herald a move to a fundamentally less broadly based inclusive approach to planning, something that is likely to foster cynicism about our commitment to the spirit of democratic accountability at all.
RDAs have as their most significant task the promotion of economic growth within their regions. I endorse that priority without hesitation. However, as currently constituted, RPBs take into account social and environmental factors, especially through their social, economic and environmental partner arrangements. That is vital, because it is the RPB that brings to bear on planning and other regional spatial issues the necessary wider democratic input as well as environmental and social factors, all of which are crucial to reaching balanced decisions that have wide support, especially in the communities affected by those decisions.
The RPB also gives clear democratic representation to local authorities and to the voluntary and community sectors, significantly reducing the risk that the entire process will be disproportionately influenced in favour of economic development alone, with those seeking a more balanced approach reflecting environmental factors automatically at a disadvantage.
The clause seems possibly to pre-empt the outcome of the sub-national review of economic development and regeneration that the Government currently have under consideration. While I realise that the Government’s most recent consultation document, Prosperous Places, also proposes that planning functions are transferred to RDAs, many key parts of civil society have strongly opposed that in their responses.
It is perhaps not for this discussion, but it is worth noting that an alternative approach—the creation of regional sustainable development agencies—has been put forward by some of the critics. As proposed, these agencies would have a wider remit, giving proper weight to both environmental and economic issues, as well as incorporating democratically accountable membership.
We must unquestionably have a strong economy, but a strong economy for what? Surely the qualitative dimensions of society are central to sustaining civilisation itself. I do not believe that that is to overstate the case. I suggest that it is not appropriate, therefore, that the
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1000
My noble friend also makes the important point that under existing planning legislation, the RPBs can delegate regional planning functions to local authorities. I have no issue with this, because local authorities are rightly subject to the democratic checks and balances, including objective consideration of social and environmental factors, which do not apply to RDAs. Frankly, I am not reassured by the duty laid on those exercising the regional planning function that they have to do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. This somewhat nebulous and often misused term might well allow RDAs to regard a healthy economy as the sole indicator of whether development can be regarded as sustainable and still be compliant with the legislation. My amendment is intended to strengthen this part of the Bill—I say again how much I welcome the Bill—by making it absolutely clear, which I consider it is not as the clause is drafted, that the responsibility and accountability remain with the RPB.
Planning is obviously central to the well-being of us all. This surely demands that the maximum number of people and the widest possible cross-section of the community should identify with what is being done. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has pretty much said it all, but I go further in seeking to take the clause out of the Bill altogether. It was explained in the Commons, but not why it is there. I am aware that the shelf life of the regional assemblies may be limited; if that is the case, it would be better to have the constitutional structure of changes for the full package together. I assume that this is not the package because the RPBs’ delegation is discretionary. I do not believe that the RDAs are the right bodies to take on planning functions, sponsored, I assume, by BERR. I would not say that their regeneration focus is necessarily inappropriate, but I do not think it is complete. Most importantly, they are appointed bodies and not representative of their communities.
At this stage, I am seeking an explanation regarding what I now remember was called by the Bill team “transitional provisions” on a list of groupings. I should have been suspicious of that when I saw it.
As a subsidiary question, what would the position be in London where there are different governmental arrangements, and in the London Development Agency, where the Mayor of London stands in the position of the Secretary of State vis-Ã -vis all the other development agencies?
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1001
6.45 pm
Lord Cameron of Dillington: I support both proposals, but probably more so the Question whether the clause should stand part. I have a problem with the clause from both ends, as it were. Who are the RPBs—or, rather, who will they be? In the debate in the other place, the Minister repeatedly referred to regional assemblies, seemingly without realising that the Government had already decided to abolish them. So my first question is: how will the RPBs be constituted in the future? I expect that there are others here who know the answer. I ask that not to call into question or doubt the ability of local government to co-ordinate itself on a regional basis. More and more work is being done on a cross-border basis on a whole range of work. What worries me is that unless the RPBs are properly constituted bodies, which remain in being in spite of the fact that they might have delegated their powers, how or when might a looser arrangement be able to regrasp these powers?
That brings me to the other side of the equation. I do not believe, as others have stated, that RDAs are suitable to take on this role. They are economically focused; they have a big regeneration budget and can drive an economic agenda but they are not democratic. All too often they seem to think that they know best. They have a reputation in many areas of not listening very hard. They can drive an agenda without any democratic recourse and are not usually very popular organisations. They are, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, focused on economic regeneration, often at the expense of the social and environment factors—what the noble Lord loosely referred to as a quality of life agenda.
I do not think that this delegation is a good idea. Incidentally, the few RDA board members to whom I have spoken are not particularly keen on it either. They do not think that they are really equipped to take on these responsibilities. If the RPBs were to delegate powers to the RDAs on a temporary basis, how could the RPBs, or whatever they may be in the future, be certain of being able to wrest those powers back again?
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for enabling us to have this debate. This is an important clause and he has raised very important issues. As usual, I agree with much of what he has said; I do not agree with his amendment but I agree with the issues that he has raised, which are served by the Bill and by the clause. Let me explain why and take on board the questions that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
The concern that has been expressed, particularly by my noble friend Lord Judd, is that given their remit to promote economic development, regional development agencies will naturally tend to focus on economic issues rather than promote sustainable development and housing supply. The motive behind trying to bring together our intention to replace regional economic and regional spatial strategies with a single regional strategy was precisely to make sure that we have in the future sufficient agencies in our regions to take advantage
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1002
We have debated this in the context of the Bill as a whole and we cannot have a strong economy without having a sustainable economy. Regional development agencies have concentrated on economic issues in the past—that has been their raison d’être—but they will not be able to develop the single strategy with its purpose as we want it unless they address issues of sustainable development and housing supply.
As to how planning responsibilities might be organised in the future, the regional development agency, if it were to be the planning agency, would have to operate the full range of planning legislation. That means sustainable planning legislation, which is at the very heart of our planning arrangements. PPS1, as I have quoted many times in this Chamber, has the responsibility for sustainable development. It is therefore tempting, but quite problematic, to pose these ideas as oppositional. The regional development agencies have to address issues of sustainability and, if they become responsible for planning in some shape or form, they will have to take on issues to do with sustainable development through the planning apparatus.
Lord Tyler: Does the Minister accept that if the change to which she refers takes place, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is well made; that is, that present regional boards simply are not equipped for this role, and will need quite different expertise and experience? What steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that?
Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may develop my argument, because the second part was essentially about the extension of democracy that we want to see and why that is compatible with what we are proposing. I rather jumped into my argument back to front; I should start with the story and then try to answer the questions.
I remind noble Lords that in the sub-national review published last year we announced our intention, subject to consultation, to replace regional economic and regional spatial strategies with a single regional strategy and to transfer the regional planning functions of the assemblies—which of course are voluntary bodies; there was no question of our abolishing them—to regional development agencies following appropriate legislation.
We have consulted on those proposals. There is widespread support for the principle of a single regional strategy, which would obviously make sense. However, there have been concerns about how best to secure this. Throughout this process, our intention has been to create a foundation for the future which strengthens partnership working between regional agencies and local authorities. We are carefully considering our response to the consultation to ensure that we obtain the best mechanism for taking the regional strategy forward. I say to my noble friend Lord Judd that there is no loss of democracy here. We are extremely keen to ensure that local authorities play the fullest possible
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1003
Clause 171 was drafted simply to enable the regional assembly to delegate regional planning functions to the regional development agency if—but only if—both parties agree. The clause is effective, therefore, only where the regional assembly chooses to use it and the RDA agrees. This provision is important because we simply want to facilitate closer working between regional assemblies and RDAs. I have reassured my noble friend in writing but shall do so again now. Clause 171 only enables delegation. It does not bring a transfer of function. As he will see, under subsection (7) the regional planning board can take back its delegated powers at any time. The powers will not be permanently transferred but facilitate something that we think is extremely important.
Lord Greaves: Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not provide any incentives or bribes in the form of money or greater powers to those who transfer compared with those who do not?
Lord Cameron of Dillington: The Minister mentioned regional assemblies five or six times. As I understand it, they will cease to exist next year. If they have delegated their powers, who will then get them back?
Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may go into a bit of detail. The powers of regional assemblies will be transferred in 2010. As I say, they are not statutory bodies; they can choose to have a life of their own and take on other functions. In the north-west, for example, the regional assembly has been formally abolished and 4NW has been established in its place with a leaders’ forum for the north-west area. The Secretary of State has designated 4NW as the regional planning body for the north-west. It has received grant from CLG on the basis that it undertakes the activities of the previous regional assembly. In Yorkshire and Humberside, the regional assembly recently resolved to wind itself up with effect from the end of March 2009 and to replace itself with a leaders’ forum. Discussions on the details of that are now being undertaken by the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber and regional partners. Each region can come to its own democratic decision on how best to be configured in the future. The leaders’ forum is an idea that has been put forward and is an option. The important thing is to ensure that local authorities decide for themselves how best to exercise their partnership, which may take different forms.
In the mean time, it is certainly the Government’s intention to continue to fund the functions undertaken by the regional planning body to ensure, for example, that the RSS reviews are completed and that work on preparation for the single regional strategy is commenced. It underlines that we are essentially trying to achieve or facilitate through other configurations better democratic partnership in place of regional assemblies, ensuring that the local authority is smaller but has a driving power in that regional arrangement. As noble Lords
20 Oct 2008 : Column 1004
The clause leaves essentially unchanged the ultimate responsibility for regional planning of regional assemblies whose membership is drawn predominantly from elected local government. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that it is not a transfer of powers but delegation, and that we are alive to the importance of ensuring that democratic control continues.
Lord Greaves: Do I understand that the Minister will not answer my question? I do not blame her if she does not.
Baroness Andrews: I am so sorry; I had no intention of not answering the noble Lord’s question. We are not in the business of bribing anybody. The benefits that local government will see in becoming engaged in new regional planning arrangements are so self-evident that we do not need to create any artificial incentives. It will happen because it will be seen as the effective way forward, particularly when one considers the way that we need to look at our sub-regions as well as our regions.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |