UK Parliament / Open data

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

Amendments 178A, 179B and 180B all seek to ensure that modifications to the draft revision of a regional strategy proposed by the Secretary of State are published for consultation. Again, we look to the involvement of members of the public—or, if you like, the community. Clause 72 sets out the process for the Secretary of State to approve the draft revision, and he or she can make modifications. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State has the right to determine whom to consult. The exclusive discretion on the part of the Secretary of State contrasts with the wider position that applies to the regional spatial strategy. We feel that anyone should be able to contribute at this stage of the process. There is value to be added by those who live, work and, picking up a term from earlier in the Bill, study in an area to contribute to this. Under the process for revising a regional spatial strategy, if the Secretary of State proposes changes to the draft revision, they are to be published, and I am picking up that point here. I am of course aware that the new regional strategies have two parts to them—the spatial element and the economic element, although one hopes that they will not appear as two separate parts. We have been concerned throughout the Bill, particularly the latter parts, that the spatial elements and, using the term in the widest possible sense, the sustainable aspects are vulnerable to being overwritten by economic concerns. It occurred to me that the reason why the Government have lost some of the consultative elements that appear in the 2004 Act may be due to a feeling engendered by the current economic situation—that one has to get on with everything. There is a bit of an air of panic, if I can put it that way. Is there any evidence that the process under the 2004 Act has been a failure? I take what my noble friend says about examinations in public—but I refer to the consultative provisions. If they are thought to have worked well I am puzzled as to why they are not precisely replicated.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c71GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top