Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

This is a large and important group of amendments and is one of the two groups that are the meat of our discussions today. I am assuming that the Marshalled List I have before me is correct, so I shall speak to Amendments 165D, 177A, 177B, 177E and 177F, and to the question of whether the clause should stand part. First, however, we extend our sympathies to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It is no criticism of the noble Lord to say that we would rather that she had been in her place to move her amendment. We look forward to her coming back. These are the proposals for a new system of regional planning that will be called the regional strategy. If I have understood them, the strategy will be two plans or strategies in one. The regional spatial strategy, which my noble friend pointed out we have had for only three or four years, is to be abolished or subsumed into the new regional strategy. In addition, we are to have the regional economic strategy, which until now has been produced by the regional development agencies and is one of a number of strategies that informs the regional spatial strategy. We have to understand how the new system is going to work in relation to these two quite different functions. They are closely related, but they are different. The RDA is not mainly a strategy-producing body, but an investing body. It is a means by which funds from the Government, the private sector and other public bodies are channelled into particular projects in a region, which is what their economic strategy and planning is about. We also have the regional spatial strategy. When we were dealing with the Bill four years ago, we wrestled with the change from pure land-use planning into spatial planning and the difference between them. The truth is that it is a gradation. There had been a lot of spatial planning for a long time, but the emphasis was put on something more than simply land-use planning. It was indicative and an attempt to be proactive. Nevertheless, it was still part of the planning system. The regional spatial strategy is part of the development plan, which allows authorities to judge the merits of development proposals as they come forward. It consists of the regional spatial strategy, the local development framework and the local development documents, which are all being rolled into one. Is there a conflict in rolling into one document the policies, which are to be carried out actively to produce development, with the development plan, which judges those policies in which planning authorities—at whatever level, from the local planning authority to the Secretary of State—will have to judge policies when they come out? No doubt there will be a relationship with the national policy statements produced by the Infrastructure Planning Commission as they relate to that region. There is a difficulty here and I do not understand why the Government want to do it. I have the first part of the regional spatial strategy for the north-west, which has been adopted. For a few months, we have had this document, which will now be put on one side. Part of its title is ““Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021””. If only Governments could think in that sort of timescale, the whole system would be a lot better. I have brought this document because under the part entitled ““Policy Context””, in which this RSS has been put together for the north-west, a number of important strategies are listed: the regional economic strategy; the regional housing strategy and a lot of other strategies, including the regional rural delivery framework, the north-west waste strategy, the sustainable energy strategy; the climate change action plan; the freight strategy; the regional health investment plan; the north-west tourism strategy; and the vision for coastal resorts, which would include Blackpool. It is interesting that the regional economic strategy is at the top of the list, has a paragraph of its own and is obviously the most important. This strategy provides a regional framework as part of the policy context for the RSS. On the regional economic strategy it states: "““The RES provides a regional framework for economic development, skills and regeneration … It identifies five priority areas—business; skills and employment; regeneration; infrastructure; and quality of life””." There is no harm in that. It, "““sets out key aims and objectives for each””—" I repeat, key aims and objectives— "““and highlights the activities that the NWDA””—" the regional development association— "““believes will promote the change necessary to transform the North West economy””." It is very much a proactive document, which is full of activity for carrying out policies. Clearly, planning documents guide development. They should guide what should happen, what should be stopped in some places and what should be promoted in others, but it has a different function from that of spending other people’s money to achieve things. Putting them together in one regional strategy is fraught with difficulties. That is the general stuff for the clause stand part debate. I shall speak briefly to the amendments that I have tabled. Amendment 165D seeks to disentangle sustainable economic growth and sustainable development or economic development in the two categories. It relates to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I think. There is a muddle here: confusion, or potential conflict, between the two aims of the regional strategy. Amendments 177A and 177B relate to the list of matters that are to be taken account of in a revision of the regional strategy. Everyone in this Committee knows that ““revision of regional strategy”” means putting together the first regional strategy, because in the interim period the RSS will be the regional strategy. It is what you do for the regional strategy. The matters to be taken into account in the revision in Clause 71 are quite interesting, because they relate closely to the matters set out in Part 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is about the RSS. As my noble friend said, it is to be repealed. However, the matters are slightly different and relate to slightly different things. When the Bill refers to, "““national policies and advice contained in guidance which has been given by the Secretary of State””," as something to which the responsible regional authorities must have regard, that is the same wording as in the previous Act, which is being repealed. As far as the RSS is concerned, there is no difference. However, the economic development side of it—the part that is coming from the RDA—is new. The question is how far it represents a greater degree of dirigiste economic planning from the centre. It clearly says ““national policies”” on development. There is an issue here that needs resolving. Amendment 177B is about the resources that are available. The wording is again lifted from the 2004 Act, which referred to the planning process: the creation of the regional spatial strategy. The implication is that the resources are the resources available for putting that plan together. The implication of what is now going in is that the resources that are available are the investment resources that will be available for carrying out projects in the region. That is quite different and separate, and something that we need to ask the Government to allow us to understand. They need to explain why the same wording is appropriate for economic development activity rather than simply for planning activities. The next amendment has been moved to another group. Amendment 177E is about the appraisal of the sustainability of the regional strategy when it is being put together. There has to be an appraisal of sustainability. I propose to insert the words ““economic, social and environmental”” before ““sustainability””. The amendment is designed to probe just how far this new regional strategy is a shift of emphasis away from spatial planning and land-use planning towards proactive economic planning where the investment decisions will determine the planning decisions that come from them, how far it will be economic, and how far social, and particularly environmental, aspects will be taken into account at that stage. Is this what it looks like: a shift towards a purely economic emphasis in the regional strategy compared with the present regional spatial strategy? If it is not, why is it not? I think that that covers the amendments in my group, but I want to add a final brief comment. Because the football match was snowed up this weekend and I had nothing to do yesterday, I spent some time foraging on the internet. To my surprise, I discovered that a regional strategy in the north-west is already in the process of being put together. I was somewhat surprised about that because I thought that in our debates on the Bill we were discussing whether this was a good idea, but I now discover that it is happening. The first consultation on the principles-of-disuse paper started on 3 February for 12 weeks, so we are now into what people say they are looking forward to: a vibrant debate around the region on this document. That produced a wry smile. It is all there on the internet in something called RS2010. The process has gone as far as commissioning people to produce a fancy logo, but I do not know how much that has cost. There is a Principles and Issues Paper, which I have not yet had time to read. Then there is a ““think”” piece on moving towards a north-west single regional strategy, produced by SQW Consulting. It is about 50 or 60 pages long, and I have not had time to read that either. Then I discovered that there is a standard letter—I am not sure to whom—signed by the chairman of the regional development agency, the NWDA, and the chairman of the new leaders’ forum, which is a proto-leaders’ board in the north-west. He is someone called Lord Peter Smith, which I think is an alias for the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh. I was hoping that he would be here today to explain it all to me, but he is not. Perhaps he is too busy with all the north-west organisations, for which he no doubt does an excellent job. I am a little concerned that this process is rushing off apace in the north-west. It is at the stage of the initial consultation on principles and policies, and it will be a few weeks at least before this legislation gets through Parliament. However, although this performs a useful function in that it shows us what it might be like for everyone in the future, I am not sure that this is how to go about things.