 House of Commons |
Session 2002 - 03 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill |
| Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TABLE | ||
| Sitting | Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
| 1st | Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 | — |
| 2nd | Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 | — |
| 3rd | Part 1, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 12 and 13 (so far as not previously concluded) | 11.25 am |
| 4th | Clauses 14 to 36 | — |
| 5th | Clauses 14 to 36 | — |
| 6th | Clauses 14 to 36 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2 | 5 pm |
| 7th | Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53 | — |
| 8th | Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53 | — |
| 9th | Clauses 37 to 39, Schedule 1, Clauses 40 to 49, Schedule 2, Part 5 (so far as not previously concluded), New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 5 | 11.25 am |
| 10th | Part 6, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 6 | 5 pm |
| 11th | Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90 | — |
| 12th | Part 7, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clauses 78 to 83, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 84, Schedule 5, Clause 85, Schedule 6, Clauses 86 to 90 (so far as not previously concluded), remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill | 5 pm |
Column Number: 004
Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Amess. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say how much we are looking forward to debating matters under your's and Mr. Pike's chairmanship. I have had the great pleasure of knowing you for some considerable time. You were extremely helpful when I first became a Member of Parliament. You will have no difficulty ruling over the Committee, given your background, some, though not all, of which I am familiar with. I had not before realised that you were a teacher, which will stand you in good stead, as will your being a father of five children—anyone who can get through that successfully will have no difficulty with the Committee. Your constituency is Southend, West. I know Southend well; there are places where people can sail on a day like today. There are not many Londoners who can say that they remember getting a sun tan on Southend beach, but I certainly remember doing so. We welcome you and your colleague, Mr. Pike, whose background as a Labour party organiser will equally ensure that he has no difficulty.
We have to discuss important subjects today and in the sittings ahead. We had a good debate on Second Reading. There is no doubt that the Bill, while technical in many parts, deals with issues that are of great interest to all our constituents. They are about the places in which we live, the environment and local matters that affect us. Many of us, myself included, receive many letters and representations from our constituents about planning issues, and our deliberations will be closely monitored by many outside groups and organisations. I look forward to our debates.
The Chairman: I remind hon. Members that, under the Standing Order, the debate on the programme motion may continue for up to 30 minutes.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): I echo the Minister's kind remarks, Mr. Amess. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and that of your co-Chairman, Mr. Pike. We will do our best to make sure that our proceedings are expedited in good order, although we shall oppose the Bill through every avenue that is open to us. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill with the Minister of State, her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), and other members of the Committee. I hope that we will have a constructive debate, but it will be more constructive if the Government listen to our arguments and accept our amendments.
The genesis of the Bill lies in three excellent Green Papers issued by the Government. The major one, ''Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', sets the context from which the Bill derives. Paragraph 1.2 of the document states:
- ''England is one of the most crowded countries in the world. Only 8% of the land surface is urbanised, but over 90% of our population lives in urban areas. We need good planning to deliver development that is sustainable and which creates better places in which people can live and work.''
I do not believe that anyone who has anything to do with the planning system would object to that
Column Number: 005
statement—indeed, they would praise it. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the planning system. Conservatives do not believe that there is much wrong with it that could not be put right. The two aspects that are fundamentally wrong are that it is too slow and that planning authorities do not have enough staff with sufficient expertise.It would be entirely possible and better to reform the present system than to conduct the root-and-branch reform proposed in the Bill. No Government can introduce an entirely new system and get it right first time. The Bill proposes fundamental change, and I guarantee that members of the Committee will one day be back in another Committee Room on another Corridor discussing another planning Bill to amend this one. It would be better to try to amend the existing system, but the Government have introduced the Bill, and we must debate it.
As I said, the Bill proposes fundamental change. It introduces the regional spatial strategy, which will draw powers from local to regional authorities. It also reserves huge powers for the Secretary of State, which is fundamentally wrong. Surely it must be right to keep planning at the lowest possible level. If one draws planning decisions away from local people, they will not have ownership of the outcomes. They will not be happy with decisions if they feel that they have been imposed on them by the region or, even more so, by the Government. I hope that, even if the Bill becomes law, in practice, the day-to-day practice will be that local authorities, as far as is humanly possible, will make the decisions. We will discuss the regional spatial strategy and the regional planning body under part 1, but we believe that they will draw power away from local people.
The Bill is premature. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has not had Royal Assent, yet we are proposing a whole raft of planning policy for regional bodies that are not yet in place or are not likely to be put in place in some of the eight regions. We will end up with a mishmash of regional bodies delivering planning policy. It may be, although we hope not, that some areas will have elected regional assemblies. In other areas, regional chambers, the Government Office or the regional development agency will be responsible for planning. The country will be broken up into a mishmash of planning and other bodies. That is undesirable and will create further opportunities for Europe completely to dominate this country on a regional basis.
My colleagues have greater planning expertise than I do. We will debate the Bill with great vigour and rigour and take every opportunity to try to improve it. We do not like the system of programme motions. It is wrong to be constrained to a certain number of sittings, because no one knows which parts of the Bill will be controversial or how long it will take to deal with them. Even more than that, the Government have redefined the programming procedure. Knives mean that we have to leave certain sections of the Bill after a certain number of sittings, whether we like it or not. That seems wrong. We should spend longer on especially controversial parts of the Bill. If a part of the Bill is uncontroversial, we should quickly move on
Column Number: 006
to more controversial parts. I register a protest about the sittings motion. We do not like the procedure; it is undemocratic. If we are sitting on a Committee, we are adult enough to make our own decisions as to how long we should take, and on what matters we want to debate.Finally, I make one housekeeping point. It seems that under our new hours, we shall all have to get up earlier in the morning. I do not mind that—I am perfectly happy to be here at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. However, if we are to be here at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, let us ensure that the other housekeeping functions of the House are kept up. This morning, there were no notices along the Corridor showing which Committee Room we would be sitting in. Yesterday's notices were there, but not today's. I do not criticise any officials, but we must think about such matters. When I left Portcullis House, the Vote Office was not open. I would be grateful if you would pass the matter on to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Amess. I will raise the matter myself if necessary. People will have to get up earlier in the morning so that the housekeeping functions keep up with the earlier hours of Committees.
We shall oppose some of the Bill with great rigour. We do not like the timetable motion. Having said that, we shall operate in the Committee as congenially as we can and shall try to produce a better Bill at the end of the 12 sittings.
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 9 January 2003 |
