I want to record our thanks to all those who have devoted so many hours to debating the Bill, but it also falls to me to point out to the Secretary of State, who has kindly graced us with his presence for the final 10 minutes of the debate, that the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination undoubtedly shouldered most of the load, and I commend her on that. However, although she announced to the House that she was thoroughly enjoying doing it—at length—I have to say that, at certain points, some of us found the experience less than enjoyable.
I particularly thank Lord Bates of Langbaurgh, who shouldered the load for us in another place, and my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who led for us so admirably from the Front Bench on this lengthy Bill. I think it right also to record the contributions to the Committee stage of experienced former Ministers—my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—as well as the valuable role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne).
It is disappointing that, as a result of lengthy discussions on earlier amendments, we failed to reach what is probably the most important clause in the Bill—the one that enables planning powers to reside in the hands of unelected and unaccountable officials in the regional development agencies. My strong objection to the Bill throughout has been that removing powers from the hands of democratically elected representatives and placing them in the hands of bureaucrats and quangos is fundamentally undemocratic and at odds with the very title of the Bill. If the Bill had any pretence to living up to its description as a local democracy Bill, it would scrap regional planning and return those powers to local government, where they truly belong.
However, it is not just the centralising nature of the Bill that is so at odds with public demand. The powers are being transferred to RDAs at a time when we are experiencing one of the worst recessions that have been seen so far. We shall have to use every weapon in our arsenal in competing with other countries to pull ourselves out of recession. Is it not folly of the first order to divert RDAs from their original purpose of dealing with planning and house building at this time?
The Bill contains a rag-bag of measures. I think it right, in his absence, to record that it was the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) who described it as nonsense. At least he put his money where his mouth was this evening by tabling an amendment that garnered considerable support. It might have brought a bit more sense to a Bill which is indeed, in large part, nonsense. So much of it is either duplication or plainly unnecessary. I must ask the Minister whether she understands that the things that she is pressing local authorities to do by means of statute are things that they have been doing for years as a matter of course. For example, the requirement to promote democracy is part of the essence of what a local authority does most of the time.
The Bill emerged to fill a vacuum in legislation after the "Communities in Control" Bill was quietly dropped by the Government. It bears all the hallmarks of legislation that has been scratched together in the absence of any real direction or leadership. It is a landmark in missed opportunities. People are crying out for their elected local representatives to have real power over decision making, but the Bill provides for the opposite. It is prescriptive where it should simply be permissive, and it codifies in tiny detail matters that are best left for councils to decide.
Where is the action to help people who are struggling to pay their council tax bills, and businesses that are struggling to stay afloat and facing an onslaught of tax increases? Where is the route map for getting more homes built? We want to stimulate house building, but nothing in the Bill will achieve that. In fact, the Bill does nothing to address any of the most pressing issues that people face. It shows more than ever the extent to which the Government have simply run out of road. When our country is crying out for bold and radical change, all Ministers offer is more of the same.
It is not the place of anyone in the House to predict the outcome of the next election. Nor should a new Government seek to scrap every piece of legislation put through the Commons by the previous one. None the less, we have made it crystal clear from the start that the Bill is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, today I am putting local authorities on notice that, if elected, we will take remedial action by scrapping large parts of the Bill and all the other bureaucratic burdens that write on to the statute book what local authorities already do in any event. We are also going to abolish the entire regional strategy chapter of the Bill. Whether we get that opportunity is a matter for the electorate and can never be taken for granted, but the Bill, almost more than any other, painfully demonstrates that the electorate need to be given the opportunity sooner rather than later.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Caroline Spelman
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 October 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
497 c261-3 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:03:41 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583794
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583794
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583794