| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC55
Grand Committee
Tuesday, 24 February 2009.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]
Bill Main Page
Copy of the Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
1st Report from DPC
Committee (7th Day)
3.30 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Good afternoon and welcome to our seventh sitting. There will not be any Divisions in the Chamber so we will have a clear run.
Clause 67 : Responsible regional authorities
Baroness Warsi: This amendment, it might be said, is a precautionary amendment. I am concerned about the implications of Clause 67(2), because it might mean more than first meets the eye.
Clause 67 describes what is to be classed as the responsible regional authorities; that is, the RDA and the leaders’ board, which subsection (1) makes clear will act jointly. However, subsection (2) says that in the event that there is no leaders’ board, because it either has been disbanded or has yet to be established, the responsible authority will be the regional development authority alone. The amendment would remove that possibility, meaning that there could be a responsible regional authority only if both the RDA and the leaders’ board were established. In so far as it does that, I hope that the Minister will agree that it would strengthen the position of leaders’ boards, as set out in subsection (1), to act jointly as the responsible regional authority.
Clause 66, which allows leaders’ boards to be established, does not allow them to be established easily or even at all. Everything must be approved by the Secretary of State: the Secretary of State holds the purse strings and the Secretary of State can bring the whole thing to a sudden end if she does not think that the scheme is working to her satisfaction. In such a scenario, that would simply leave the RDA as the sole regional authority.
I know that the Government do not share my scepticism about RDAs being the most appropriate or effective bodies for facilitating local development, but even the Minister must accept that this provision, which would simply allow the RDAs to carry on as if the leaders’ board had never been dreamt up, makes a mockery of the Bill’s stated aim of handing power back to local people.
Subsection (2) appears to be open-ended, and the RDA could carry on acting as a responsible regional authority indefinitely. If a future Secretary of State, not as conscientious as the present one, were to fail to
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC56
It is clear that there are many parts of the Bill that we are unhappy with, but I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that Amendment 172B would improve the democratic accountability of the provisions. I do not think that it is satisfactory for the Secretary of State to be able, in effect, to circumvent what democratic checks there are in this part. I hope that the noble Baroness will take away this issue at this stage to consider it further. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: This is the seventh day but we are not resting. My Amendment 173A builds on what the noble Baroness has just said. I am aware that rather discreetly—almost coyly—the Bill abolishes regional chambers. That is tucked away in a schedule, but then we knew that it was coming. However, there should be justification on the record in Parliament as to why the Government have taken this decision. The regional chambers are a democratic, albeit imperfect, contribution to the regional arrangements that we have now, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is right to say that, if there is no leaders’ board, there will be no democratic input because we will have lost the regional assemblies—or chambers, as they are known statutorily—in the course of passing this Bill.
My Amendment 182D is consequential on that and I am not intending to speak to Amendment 182CA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): It is nice to be back after having had a break. The amendments that we are considering relate to Clause 67, which provides for the regional development agency, the RDA, and the leaders’ board for a region to act as the responsible regional authorities in relation to the revision of a regional strategy. Very sensibly, it provides that, where there is no leaders’ board in a region, the RDA should act as the responsible regional authority, and this is obviously where the amendment is positioned.
In short, Amendment 172B proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, begs the question of who should act as the responsible regional authority is there is no leaders’ board in a region. The noble Baroness argued that the RDA should not be given sole responsibility for the review and revision of the regional strategy, even where local authorities have failed to agree a suitable form for a leaders’ board. She spoke about the Bill, in this sense, having created a loophole, but the loophole is in fact the amendment, which fails to offer an alternative arrangement where no leaders’ board is in place. Here, in short, we are looking at an administrative and decision-making vacuum.
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC57
The Bill obviously defines responsible regional authorities as being the RDA and the leaders’ board of the region, but it must provide for the eventuality that no leaders’ board is in place. This is an extremely unlikely proposition. Leaders’ boards have been welcomed as a positive way forward. Leaders in local government are already putting them in place; five are on their way to fruition and the process is well on the road. The different forms that regional partners are choosing to adapt are evidence of the flexibility in the arrangements that the legislation allows. There is every incentive in the world for local authorities to work together to establish a mutually acceptable leaders’ board in order that they may play their full role in the regional strategy process.
The noble Baroness suggested that what she seeks to put in place would improve democratic accountability but the amendment could increase the likelihood of Secretary of State involvement if there was a vacuum. That would be very perverse when so much of our debate has focused on where the Secretary of State’s powers should rightly lie. We have been consistently clear that the reserve powers are intended as a back up, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. By weakening the joint arrangements, the amendment risks bringing in the Secretary of State to ensure that a revision takes place where there is no leaders’ board. It is therefore obvious that I cannot accept the amendment.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are similarly concerned with the default position of the RDA but offer a different solution. They propose that if there is no leaders’ board for a region then the responsible regional authority for the region would be the RDA and the regional chamber designated by the Secretary of State under Section 8 of the RDA Act, which would be retained. Many of the arguments I have just put apply equally to these amendments. However, they also have their own drawbacks. They would involve the retention of a regional chamber, but it is not clear whether this means retaining or reconvening the regional assembly in regions such as the north-west.
The Government’s position is clear: we do not want to retain the regional assembly. What we need now is democratic accountability in which local authorities are much more closely involved in making the regional strategy. We are retaining the statutory functions that the regional assemblies currently carry out as regional planning bodies and as regional chambers because we have taken into account people’s views about the current fragmentary nature of the regional architecture. What we will have now is a greater role for local authorities and a greater involvement. On that basis, I hope to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, to withdraw her amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to not move hers.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope the Minister will take this comment in the right spirit. I do not think that the tone of what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said was in any way aggressive. Certainly I made clear that my amendment was probing. I appreciate that the Minister has to respond to the amendments as they are on paper and that we often come across the problem of
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC58
Baroness Andrews: I am absolutely of the same opinion. We have got a lot of work to do today but we shall do it in the way we always have in championing local government, housing and planning legislation. We shall get to the heart of the issues in the best possible way.
Baroness Warsi: I thank the Minister for her response. I am a little disappointed and I still have concerns about how things could fall between the cracks in situations where leaders’ boards are not set up or the capacity does not exist for them to be set up. We shall look at this matter again before Report and we may well return to it then. I agree with the noble Baroness’s comments that today we should try to get to the heart of the debate and that it would be good to make progress. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 173 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
3.45 pm
Clause 68 : Review and revision by responsible regional authorities
174: Clause 68, page 46, line 3, leave out from “must” to end of line 4 and insert “conduct a review of the regional strategy for their region every 5 years”
Baroness Warsi: I shall speak also to Amendments 175 and 176. This group of amendments pertains to the review and revision of regional strategy. Two of my amendments, Amendments 174 and 176, are probing in nature. Amendment 175 is a more substantive issue.
I agree with the underlying thrust of the clause. Authorities must of course keep regional strategy under review. As circumstances change, it is vital that the responsible authorities remain alert to what they might need to adopt in their strategies. However, I have some questions about the way in which the Bill sets out how the review should be conducted. It is not the right approach for the Secretary of State to tell authorities what to do. Authorities should not simply
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC59
Amendment 174 should be read in the light of that. It is not necessary for the Secretary of State to be the directing force in ordering a review, but, equally, local authorities must step up to meet that responsibility. I believe that they can do so. Amendment 174 merely draws attention to the fact that a review must be a necessity; it need not be every five years. I chose that time span because when I read through the Bill, with all its centralising provisions, five-year plans keep popping into my head. We do not need to get bogged down in a precise figure; I simply wish to emphasise the importance of the local authority having a review of regional strategy when it feels that it is correct to do so according to the circumstances on the ground.
Amendment 176 again probes the meaning of “from time to time” in respect of the review of community involvement policies. “From time to time” is such a vague phrase as to be almost meaningless. I have suggested “when they see fit”, because the policies may stay fresh and relevant and need not be changed, in which case, a review for the sake of fulfilling the requirements of the clause would be unnecessary. Alternatively, a policy may need more urgent reviewing. The wording of my amendment would allow the authorities to react quickly to meet that need, whereas “from time to time” suggests that a review could be kicked into the long grass no matter what the circumstances.
I am sure that the Minister will assuage my concerns, but “from time to time” is a curious phrase. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have added our names to Amendment 175, which raises similar concerns about the Secretary of State’s role. Our amendment in this group is Amendment 174A, suggested to us by the Local Government Association, which rightly anticipated our concern as regards the involvement of local authorities. Under Section 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the regional planning body has to seek the advice of upper-tier authorities, national parks authorities and, I believe, the Broads Authority in drawing up the regional spatial strategies. The authorities, on the other hand, are under a duty to give advice.
This has not been replicated in the current Bill. I am told that the current arrangements for regional spatial strategies work well. Therefore, my amendment would put the current provision into the Bill, which seems entirely reasonable, given that it provides for a new strategy to replace the regional spatial strategy. I say that knowing the role of the leaders’ board, which may not consist of every authority in the region.
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC60
My amendment is not just about status, but ensuring that those who can have a sensible input into the strategy have the opportunity to make it and, conversely, can be called on to make that input. I was contacted this morning by the English National Park Authorities Association—which may be why the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is present; I look forward to what he has to say—offering its support for this amendment. It commented particularly on the expertise that is available and might be lost if the provision is not replicated. The association told me that it has been in correspondence with the Minister, who confirmed to it that the national park authorities will retain their role under Section 4 of the 2004 Act. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position.
Lord Judd: As there was a reference to me, perhaps I should intervene. I apologise for not having associated myself with this endeavour previously, but in the week before the recess I was hospitalised.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her amendment. I should explain that I am president of Friends of the Lake District and the vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks. Perhaps I may make a general observation; my noble friend knows absolutely that I am enthusiastically behind the Government’s intent in this Bill, as I am in the Planning Bill, to get shape, purpose, direction and drive into our planning processes and to strengthen them. I take second place to no one in that.
However, she also knows that I am very much at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her fellow Peers, in believing that the strength of national planning depends on the quality of the consultation process before it is formulated. Consultation is crucial; the more consultation there is, not just in the spirit, the stronger will be the plan that eventually emerges, because you have the maximum possible public goodwill and understanding with you. You do not find yourself in a situation from the moment that the proposal is put on the table and concluded that you are in a clawback situation and are fighting defensive action against people who, very often, might not have been as strongly opposed if they had been consulted. Consultation is not only wise, but important in principle.
Indeed, my noble friend was exemplary in the Planning Bill in the way that she took the point about the national parks and co-operated; she almost took over the amendment to the point at which it was included in the Bill. That was because the national parks have a specific purpose, which is established nationally and repeated in legislation, to act on behalf of the nation, not just the local community, in ensuring that certain principles and priorities that might not be focused on with the degree of importance that they deserve are taken seriously regarding these unrivalled assets to our nation’s heritage, psychological strength and the rest.
I could not help but feel, when I looked at all this, that there must simply have been an inconsistency—that something that had been specifically been covered in the Planning Bill had somehow not come across into the context of this Bill. From that standpoint I hope that my noble friend will be able to look seriously at what the noble Baroness has argued and accommodate
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC61
Baroness Andrews: I turn first to the review of the regional strategy. I am pleased to see my noble friend in such good health and good voice, and to see the national parks represented again in the Bill.
With regard to the timing of the reviews, Clause 68 requires the regional authorities to keep the strategy under review. The power to do that, which is important, gives them discretion to determine the timing and scope of the review, so I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said. I should point out that under the terms of Clause 5 regional authorities are also required to monitor the strategy annually. The monitoring and the question of whether a review is timely will go together. Monitoring will provide the information that will help them to judge whether a review is needed.
Clause 68 essentially provides a default power for the Secretary of State to require a review if, for whatever reason, the regional authorities have not done that and there are apparently good reasons for doing so. That is simply taken from the regional spatial strategy arrangements under the terms of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. I emphasise that it is very much for the regional authorities to decide the timing.
Amendments 174 and 175 would remove the power of the regional authorities, and I understand that these are probing amendments. The noble Baroness has explained why she suggested that the frequency of the regional strategy should be at five-yearly intervals, and I understand what she is asking for here. In fact, we agree that reviews of regional strategy are likely to take place approximately every five years; we said so in our regional strategy policy document and intend to restate it in future guidance. However, it is crucial to retain flexibility, which is currently in place for both the regional economic and the regional spatial strategies. None of us would think that the trigger for a review of regional strategy should be an arbitrary date. It has to be based on perception of need and evidence if external circumstances change—for example, if there is a major shift in the economic environment, such as a major expansion of port facilities. We need to keep that flexibility to review as and when circumstances change, because those determine the investment decisions and planning decisions as well.
It should primarily be the responsibility of the regional authorities to judge when a review is needed and what the scope of the review should be, based on the evidence available to them. That is why we used the term,
in relation to the regional authorities. I have said that that is supported by Clause 75 and monitoring the strategy.
In worst-case scenarios—I cannot imagine them, but we have to provide in legislation for the worst events—there may be a need for safeguards in the
24 Feb 2009 : Column GC62
4 pm
I turn to Amendment 174A. I shall come back to the noble Baroness’s other amendment on the other issue of timing. Amendment 174A addresses the role of individual local authorities in these decisions about the timing and scope of reviews of the regional strategy. The amendment would require regional authorities to consult county and unitary councils in the regions, as well as any National Park authorities or the Broads Authority when deciding whether to trigger a review of the strategy. Significantly, district councils in two-tier areas would not be consulted directly, although they would have to be consulted by their county. Clearly we are at one with this argument.
Local authorities should be at the centre of decisions about the regional strategy. The noble Baroness anticipated some of those arguments. That is why we listened so closely during the consultation on these proposals and responded by giving the local authority leaders’ board the joint duty, with the RDA, to prepare the draft regional strategy and prepare an implementation plan. As a result, county and unitary councils, as well as any National Park authorities or the Broads Authority, will already be directly involved in decisions about the timing and scope of reviews through their participation in the local authority leaders’ board. Concern has been expressed by the Local Government Association that, because we are not replicating Section 4(4) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, we are in some ways weakening the role, because there is no strictly equivalent provision in this Bill giving counties a formal role in the regional strategy process.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |