| Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
|
|
Matthew Green: I am inclined to agree with the reasoning behind the amendments. If the Government are to proceed with the Bill as drafted, it must include those subsections. They allow the Government to give the planning powers to an unelected body, from which the Government can take away those powers. I do not want the Government to give them to unelected bodies; I only want the Government to establish them when there is an elected regional assembly. However, if the Government are to do so, the Conservatives' amendment would prevent them from taking those planning powers away from a regional chamber, a regional development agency or, indeed, the Government office and giving them to the elected regional assembly, which might come along later. I could not support that, because the powers must be in the hands of elected people. The clause and the proposed amendments highlight the fact that the Government are seriously intending to set up RPBs that are not elected. They are going to establish them in the regions before the elected regional assemblies are in existence. Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Law Society suggested the amendments? They are probing amendments. As he knows, an amendment is often tabled, with no expectation of acceptance, as a means of probing the Government's intentions. Matthew Green: I accept that and I am glad that the amendments were tabled. It brings us to the Government's clear intention to hand powers to unelected bodies. Later on we shall have to reflect on powers moving up from county councils, but the direction in which they are moving is irrelevant: the key problem is the existence of unelected regional bodies with planning powers. Ultimately, we understand that the Government want elected regional assemblies in all regions, but debate continues about the current boundaries and regions likely to be successful. It seems unlikely that referendums would be won in regions such as the south-east, the south-west and perhaps the west midlands. Mr. Clifton-Brown: If I did not say so, I alluded to it—the power in subsection (3) will allow the Secretary of State to revoke recognition from a regional assembly as well.
4.15 pmMatthew Green: I agree entirely. The Government have wrapped themselves up in the problem. I understand why they need the power: if they have given it to an unelected body, they will subsequently need to take it away and give it to a elected body. However, if the provision remains law, a future Secretary of State could take the power away from an elected regional assembly if he did not like the colour of the politics in a certain region. That might not be the Government's intention—the Minister will, of course, say that it is not—but the problem remains that some decades hence, a Secretary of State could, by direction, take the power away from an elected regional assembly. Column Number: 070 The Minister must reflect on how to escape that conundrum. My suggestion is not to grant the powers until elected regional assemblies have been set up, but I realise that he will not accept that. Perhaps he will find some other way to avoid having that open-ended power in the long run. Mr. Wilshire: I am sorry not to have been present for the whole debate. I hope that I shall not go over ground that has already been covered. Two other issues are relevant to the group of amendments, but first I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike, about amendment No. 50, which stipulates that the Secretary of State can give a direction, only
Section 4(2) sets out a list of authorities from (a) to (d). Having thought about problems over lunch, I tabled some amendments designed to change that list. At the moment they are not even starred amendments, but by Tuesday they will be relevant. I presume that they will be taken when we reach clause 4. I could explain the significance of amendment No. 50 and become involved in debating which bodies should have to be consulted. However, as the list in clause 4 is used on several occasions, and, as long as I can still discuss whether the list is correct when we reach clause 4, I will not need to trouble the Committee this afternoon. That is why I seek your guidance, Mr. Pike. The Chairman: Order. If an amendment to change the list is tabled and selected under clause 4, it will be perfectly permissible to debate it then. Mr. Wilshire: That is helpful. With the assurance that we can debate the matter later on, I shall not detain the Committee on amendment No. 50. I shall speak to amendment No. 5. It is often held that the easiest sort of amendment to propose and talk about is one that changes the word ''may'' to ''must'', or vice versa, and I suspect that many such changes have been debated with tongue in cheek. On this occasion, however, such a change is important. We have debated whether it is right or proper that the Secretary of State should withdraw recognition or do other things. The Minister will comment on that. I will not repeat the arguments about why that is wrong—I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said. Let us assume, for the purposes of discussion, that the Government resist the amendments and that they will not listen to good common sense or wisdom coming from the Opposition Benches. The Secretary of State may, under the Bill, give a direction to withdraw recognition of a body and he could go on to do this, that and the other. Subsection (5) states that
That is wrong—[Interruption.] Allow me to continue—this is an important issue. If such a structural arrangement is to be put in place, if that will be required to happen region by region, and if the Secretary of State is to be given the powers, it is inadequate to say that he may, if he feels like it, withdraw recognition of the responsible body. If it needs to be done, he must do it. The word ''must'' is, on this occasion, crucial. Column Number: 071 Mr. Clifton-Brown: I apologise for not having spotted amendments Nos. 5 and 50 in the group. Amendment No. 5 is essential, because chaos would ensue if the Secretary of State were to withdraw recognition of a body and not take on its functions. In such a case, there would be nothing in place whatsoever. Mr. Wilshire: I am trying to get the Minister to accept that point, because he argues that the Bill is necessary and that the new paraphernalia are essential, and he will have his way because he has the majority of Committee members on his side. I am simply trying to help him, although I do not know why. I am, on occasions, a generous soul and I am trying to show him a flaw in his argument and his procedures. He will get his Bill, but in it the Secretary of State will have discretion whether or not to bother. The Government machine seeks to control everyone and everything, so I am offering him a way to get the Secretary of State under control and require him to do what other bodies are being required to do. We are trying to be helpful. That may be novel to the Minister, but politicians everywhere are pragmatic on occasion. Here is an opportunity for him to win recognition and to excel in improving the Government's Bill by ensuring that they have in place the mechanism that they set out to achieve. Mr. McNulty: The hon. Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I treat his kind offer with a degree of suspicion. It is not appropriate to describe the amendment as a mishmash, or badly-drafted. I concede that what the hon. Member for Cotswold said about there being a clear and absolute role for probing amendments is true. Whether such amendments change things at Committee stage or subsequently in the process, they are often the most useful part of our deliberations. I do not have a problem with probing amendments, unless they are pursued to a vote or probed to death and then dropped. Amendments Nos. 102, 49, 5 and 50 would alter the arrangements for withdrawing recognition from RPBs. Amendment No. 5 would make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to exercise the RPB function when no RPB was recognised at the time. Amendment No. 102 would remove the Secretary of State's power to give a direction withdrawing recognition of a body as a regional planning body. Amendment No. 49 would remove that power along with the Secretary of State's power to exercise those functions of an RPB that he thinks appropriate if he has not recognised a body to act as the RPB, or if he withdraws recognition from an RPB and does not recognise another body in its place. Amendment No. 50 would require the Secretary of State to consult unitary, county and national park authorities, regional development agencies, regional chambers, Government offices and members of the public before giving a direction designating a body as a regional planning body. It might help the Committee if I explain the thinking behind the clause. The Secretary of State is concerned to ensure that the bodies with responsibility for preparing revisions to draft RSS are appropriate Column Number: 072 and representative of the range of interests in the region. In order to be designated as an RPB, certain criteria will have to be met. I shall return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold about chambers shortly. The criteria currently envisaged, in line with the planning Green Paper, would be whether the RPB and the proposed steering group appointed to manage the preparation of the revised strategy are sufficiently representative; whether the RPB will consult a sufficiently broad range of regional stakeholders, including through focus groups or planning forums; whether the RPB will work sufficiently closely with all groups to ensure delivery of the strategy; and whether the RPB will be able to take a sufficiently strategic regional view, addressing difficult regional choices where necessary. PPG11 on regional planning already provides advice on most of the above and is to be further revised, as I said earlier. The Secretary of State will expect the RPB to demonstrate that it has had regard to that in applying for designation and can demonstrate that all four criteria are satisfied.The provisions that amendments Nos. 102 and 49 would delete are there to deal with the possibility that a regional planning body ceases to meet the criteria, or, in some circumstances, that it fails to carry out its functions appropriately. The amendments would leave no means of maintaining the policy either on how representative an RPB should be or how inclusively it should carry out its work. That would not be acceptable. The hon. Member for Ludlow made a point about future Secretaries of State taking power away from an elected regional assembly. A literal interpretation of the matter may—only may—be correct, but I should be astonished if by the time elected regional assemblies are up and running there were not a regions Bill of some description, which would be needed subsequent to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill and would, among other things, prescribe the provisions of the elected regional assembly in terms of the planning dimension, regional strategies and so on. It would not be appropriate to say that that is what will happen in future, nor would it be appropriate to consider where we are now in the context of what might happen in future. However, we shall return to the matter when we discuss the ongoing relationship between the regions and the local bodies.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 9 January 2003 |
