John Healey
MP for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough · Labour · United Kingdom
“Mr Spock, I think some would say, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend is right. Despite global conflicts, trade tensions and rising threats in the world, which are pushing up inflation, bearing down on growth and pushing up borrowing costs, the UK economy is demonstrating huge resilience.”
“The Prime Minister and I have been clear that we must cut the costs of welfare. On levels of taxation, we had a period of Conservative Government, with low growth and high debt. They crashed the economy with the mini-Budget, and we had levels of taxation that were putting pressure on business, adding to the cost of living.”
“The hon. Lady is talking to the person who led the work to establish a defence and security partnership with the European Union and bilateral agreements with other countries, on which we now build both our economic strength and our national security strength. On the question of the Budget, I ask the hon.”
“Since day one in the job, the Prime Minister and I have been in lockstep in our determination to meet Britain’s fiscal rules. This is the bedrock on which we build good growth and help give a bit of breathing space to families and businesses.”
“May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves)? I am proud to have been a member of a Government with the first female Chancellor in 700 years.”
“My hon. Friend speaks up very strongly for his local area. He is right about the importance of pubs, social clubs and live venues, and about the importance of the 20% cut that we announced in July. These are the things that make the places where we live the places that we also love.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,340 lines we hold for John Healey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 75 of 127.
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me in my job. I have no intention of being in the job for six years, as he was before he came into government. We will have won an election before the end of that period. Big stealth cuts to our children’s hospitals are not what the public expected to see when they heard the Prime Minister promise to protect the NHS budget. Will the Secretary of State admit that he is double-counting £1 billion a year in the spending review as both money for the NHS and money to paper over the cracks in social care?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this afternoon in Health questions, the Secretary of State either misled the House or made a serious mistake—I prefer to believe that it was the latter—when he told the House that I was wrong to say that the Government are breaking their promises on NHS funding. He said that even if the switch in extra funding to social care is excluded, the NHS budget will nevertheless increase in real terms over the next four years. However, the Nuffield Trust and the House of Commons Library both confirm that the budget will be cut. Can the House, through you, Mr Speaker, ensure that the Secretary of State corrects his statement this afternoon, at the earliest opportunity?”
“In fact, since the trust began, it has created 119 new community facilities, and refurbished and improved more than 2,000. It has helped more than 17,000 people in our communities to find work and more than 115,000 to get skills and training for the future. It has worked on child care places, social enterprises, community transport, and debt and financial advice, and it has helped nearly 10,000 people to become new volunteers in projects within their communities. It is special and it works in special ways, because it recognises the special challenges in the coalfields.”
“They kept going, took over the Methodist church with the help of the trust, and ran a support group for the community and attracted other volunteers. The trust has helped the South Yorkshire credit union, which is based in Goldthorpe in my constituency, and run a programme of debt support as part of a programme across the coalfields. That now helps more than 5,000 people in the light of the recession, and managed nearly £38 million of debt. Otherwise, those people would have been sunk. Of course, one of the latest grants—small but nevertheless important—was used to set up a boat house on the lake that occupies part of the old Manvers pit site, in conjunction with the British Canoe Union. A new form of activity and use for the coalfield area has therefore been created.”
“The trust is special because it understands the unique culture and character of the coalfields, because it is trusted by the communities, and because it reaches back with families and through generations, sharing their history, but also helping them to shape their future. In my constituency, the trust gave an important grant to Cortonwood Miners Welfare club. Cortonwood, of course, was the pit where the miners strike started in March 1984. The grant enabled what was still a well-used building to become a one-stop shop for services and, more importantly, the future hub of the community. It supported the Cortonwood Comeback Centre, a group of women who originally formed as part of Women Against Pit Closures during the strike.”
“I pay tribute to the work of the chief executive, Janet Bibby, and her small team of staff, and in particular to the trustees—dedicated men and women—who are chaired by Peter McNestry. They have committed their work to backing the trust and have served the coalfields so well. The trust is an independent charity and limited company. It supports our communities through grants, but it also supports them by linking up in a more long-term and strategic way with other agencies. It operates in England, Wales and Scotland. Simply put, the trust reaches people and parts of our communities that public agencies simply cannot reach. It helps to rebuild the community and strengthen the spirit of the old pit villages, as well as providing the physical regeneration of the other programmes.”
“When that was closed, its 285-acre site became part of one of the largest derelict areas in western Europe, and one of the biggest regeneration challenges this country has faced. Now, I am happy to say, it has been overtaken by new jobs, businesses and housing. The trust has played an important part in that regeneration since it was set up, supporting groups and activities in the constituency with more than £3 million. It supported the widest possible range of work, from the Dearne Valley college to the Rawmarsh St Joseph’s football club and the Montgomery hall needlework group in Wath. Across the country, the trust has distributed grants of around £190 million.”
“In my constituency, there are four wards, in which in 1981, between two fifths and two thirds, in one case, of men aged over 16 were employed in coal mining. That was the extent of the importance of the industry to our areas at the time. There was unparalleled and unique reliance on a single industry, not only for jobs, but for housing, social and welfare support, often for sports and recreation facilities and sometimes for the financial and retail services for the community. I am proud that the Labour Government set up the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and that its headquarters has been in my constituency for the past eight years, on the site of the old Manvers colliery, which had the first shaft sunk in 1870 and was closed by the previous Tory Government in 1988.”
“I am proud that a Labour Government set up the Coalfield Regeneration Trust in 1999, following the report of the Coalfields Task Force, which noted the coalfield areas of Wales, Scotland and England as having “a unique combination of concentrated joblessness, physical isolation, poor infrastructure and severe health problems” in 1998, at the start of the regeneration programme. After more than 15 years in many cases, many of our coalfield communities were still reeling from the unprecedented devastation and deliberate destruction of the coal industry at that time. Of the 130 pits that were operating in 1981, 124 closed. More than 190,000 of the 200,000 jobs in the coal industry in 1981 went. In the Yorkshire coalfields, some 67,000 jobs were lost—more than one in four of all the male jobs in the coalfield region.”
“I would like the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to understand that there has been good progress, not least through the trust, in the regeneration of our coalfields, but that there is still a lot of work to do. I would also like him to understand that there is strong support in the House, in local government and in the communities in the former coalfields for the work of the trust and of the regeneration programme. The decisions that he and his colleagues make on the review that Michael Clapham produces will be a test of the Government and of whether they can claim to be a Government for the whole country.”
“It is therefore a useful opportunity for me to underline for the Under-Secretary and his ministerial colleagues the impact of the wholesale closure of the coal industry in a very short time in the 1980s and 1990s and the importance of the review that the Department is currently conducting about the work of the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and the coalfield regeneration programme, led, of course, by Michael Clapham. Parliament is much the poorer for not having Michael Clapham in the House. He was a very strong voice, not only for Barnsley, but for the coalfields, health and safety and workers in all industries in this country. The timing of my debate is deliberate.”
“I welcome the opportunity to debate the work of the Coalfield Regeneration Trust in my constituency in South Yorkshire. I am proud to say that it has its headquarters in the Wentworth and Dearne constituency, which I am privileged to represent, and it works throughout England, Wales and Scotland. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) to the Front Bench; he is certainly the hardest working in the ministerial team, picking up the widest possible range of debates and other business on behalf of colleagues in the Department. In his constituency on the south-east fringes of Manchester, the last of the pits, in and around Poynton, was closed some 70 years ago.”
“It is not new, but it is important. It is important that it complements, not substitutes for, public services and investment. The Prime Minister criticised Government as top-down and top-heavy. The trust has always worked from the bottom up—in, with and for the coalfield communities. It supports the big society actions, but it supports the men, women and young people in the small pit villages in our country.”
“Friend said, there has been progress but there are still problems. The 2009 report by the NAO said: “The gap with the rest of the country has narrowed, but many coalfields remain among the most deprived areas in England.” A range of problems remain, related to those communities’ former dependence on coal mining and described in one of the reports as “unique challenges in the coalfields with inner city type deprivation coupled with rural isolation.” That is why the CRT is needed now as much as it was in 1999. It is needed in the coalfield areas that are still struggling and those that were hit harder in recession and will find it harder to grow again in recovery. There is one other reason why the work of the trust should recommend itself to the Minister’s Tory ministerial colleagues. The Prime Minister today spoke of the big society.”
“In 2007, the Department for Communities and Local Government commissioned a review of the trust’s work, which said that it “has made an important contribution to the transformation of the coalfields. Initially the Trust was…a responsive, opportunistic regeneration grant donor…over time the Trust has taken on more of a strategic role, supporting larger schemes…including the targeted multi-agency work…developing stronger links”— with the wider coalfield regeneration programme— “and other delivery partners such as at Shirebrook or through its work on the impressive Breathing Space Centre in Rotherham.” The NAO has said something similar and that the trust’s family employment initiatives produce work and jobs at a better rate and for more people—and at less cost to the Treasury. As my hon.”
“That is why more than 250,000 young people, in the projects that the trust has supported over the years, have become involved and part of the activities that the trust has supported. That is why nearly 10,000 people have volunteered as part of the projects. The trust is backed by local authorities in the coalfield communities, a network that is ably led by Ian Watts, the leader of Bolsover council. It is backed by public agencies that often use the trust to deliver programmes better than they can themselves, as the £3 million jobs, skills and training programme run by the trust in the east midlands demonstrates. Most importantly, the trust is backed by independent evaluators.”
“Indeed, and my hon. Friend chairs the all-party coalfields group very ably and plays an important role. He is right, and the National Audit Office recognised that progress had been made. Some of the gap with the rest of the country in jobs and skills has been closed, but a big challenge remains ahead. That is why the work of the trust and the wider programme is necessary for the future. The trust works in unusual ways that are especially suited to our coalfield communities. It helps groups to develop ideas in order to bid for support. It ensures that the support that it can give goes beyond the grant of money and assistance. Most importantly, the trust backs projects that increase opportunities for local people to get involved.”
“If they do so, they will show that, despite our deep doubts, they are a Tory-led Government unlike the Tory Government of the 1980s and 1990s, and that they will not turn their back on the coalfields, as the previous Tory Government did. I hope that the Minister will be able, in advance of the important review that Michael Clapham will produce, to give us his full commitment to that review on behalf of the Government, as well as a clear commitment to the publication of its report, and a strong commitment to seeing the trust and the regeneration programmes continuing in our coalfields throughout this Parliament and beyond.”
“My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this area, and he is absolutely right to say that the trust combines running jobs programmes with providing skills, health care and child care and all sorts of other support that recognises and tackles the often complex barriers that prevent people in our villages from getting into the kind of work that they need. The Prime Minister said today: “The rule of this government should be this: If it unleashes community engagement—we should do it.” The Coalfields Regeneration Trust does just that. It unleashes the potential, the energy and the commitment of individuals and communities in the old coalfield areas, and the Government should back the trust for the future.”
“The Department’s biggest agency is the Homes and Communities Agency. That has had not one, but two cuts to its budget this year in just two months—more than 10% of the money agreed and set aside to build new, affordable housing. Why was it that no Minister made a statement in public or to this House about those cuts? The details were snuck out on the HCA website. Will the Minister confirm now to the House that the £450 million cut in the HCA’s budget this year will mean that nearly 6,000 new affordable homes will not be built and 5,000 house building jobs will go?”
“I shall give the Minister the chance to put the record straight. There was no black hole and no house building commitments were made without the money having been agreed and set aside, as he and other colleagues have claimed. If there had been, I would have received an accounting officer’s letter, but I did not. Will he confirm, therefore, that there was £540 million in the Department’s budget last year that we planned and agreed with the Treasury to spend this year on affordable housing, and that it has been cut back by a further £220 million? Will he now admit that his Ministers and team have not had the strength to stand up to the Treasury and have not had the courage to come to the House to tell us about the cuts they are making?”
“That should surprise no one, because the new Secretary of State has been having a go at every part of the planning system like a bull in a china shop. My second question to the Minister is therefore: what is the legal planning status of the Pickles letter? When will the Government publish the legislation that will allow them to do what they wish?”
“Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) spoke of the RSSs as having been abolished, but that is not the case. As the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said, until Parliament passes legislation to revoke RSSs, they will not be abolished—they will remain in place. I fear that the Pickles letter does little to help the situation. Indeed, it creates a legislative limbo in which councils, planners and the Planning Inspectorate are uncertain of their principal reference points. At a conference at which I was speaking this morning, a distinguished academic who knows a lot about the matter described the planning system—the result of two months of Government announcements—as a vacuum and in a state of chaos.”
“The new housing Minister says that he and the Government want Britain to be a nation of house builders. That is either top-of-the-range spin or grand self-deception. If that is the case, why was the one incentive system—the housing and planning delivery grant—swept aside as part of this year’s £6 billion cuts? Why, as part of those cuts, was £230 million taken from the Homes and Communities Agency budget for building affordable homes, through housing associations, in several disadvantaged areas? Why is it that all the affordable housing investment programmes for which funding was agreed, set aside and put in place now on hold? Will the Minister—this is my first question—tell us when the money for those affordable housing programmes will be released so that building can start again? The hon.”
“Although the contributions to the debate have been measured, the comments of some council leaders have been clear. For instance, in response to the Government’s announcement about the abolition of regional spatial strategies, the Conservative leader of Adur district council said: “It will reduce the number of new homes significantly”, which he said was to be welcomed. The National Housing Federation said that the number of new affordable homes would “fall off a cliff”, while the chief executive of one of our leading house building companies described the impact of the changes as being “scary as hell”. I am concerned that on this matter, as with other policy areas, we are seeing a gap between what the Government are saying and what they are doing.”
“Beyond that, what was clear to me—it is still clear now—was that our regional spatial strategies and our approach to planning were too inflexible to reflect some of the differences between regions. Our approach was too top-down, but it is clear that the new Government’s approach is simply a charter for nimby resistance to new homes, which should concern us all because it could have worrying consequences. My associated concern is that it is a signal of the Government stepping back at national level from any role and responsibility in securing the new homes that are needed in all parts of the country for the future. The consequences of the changes are already clear. It is not so much about greater local powers but fewer new homes. In many areas, that will result in the blocking rather than the building of new homes.”
“Even in only an intervention, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) managed to make a very important point on affordable housing. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) managed to mention most of the people on his RSS constituency mailing list. I got the job of housing and planning Minister a year ago—that was all. I inherited the regional spatial strategies and quickly found that they had very few friends, as has been underlined clearly in the debate. In most regions, the regional spatial strategies have been agreed and are in place, and they were agreed by a combination of elected local council leaders from the region, in the region.”
“Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) talked about the importance of building in all areas of the country, particularly if we are concerned about the opportunities for first-time buyers and young families to get a start in life in their own area. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) talked about incentives, while the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) talked about energy efficiency and asked questions about it. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South is concerned about design standards, which are important. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine) talked about the problem with the Pickles letter, which is a significant aspect of the debate. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) talked about the importance of democracy in the planning system, which is an essential feature.”
“I have five questions for him to answer, however. The hon. Members for Milton Keynes North and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) both argued, rightly, that Milton Keynes is a town that has always been committed to growth and has always seen growth as part of its future, so the arguments that they make on behalf of their town, just like those of their predecessors—particularly the predecessor of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, who was a very distinguished Member of the House—carry a lot of weight. I have been very impressed by the quality of this afternoon’s debate. Most of the contributions have been measured and incisive, and there have been many of them. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) talked about the Yorkshire and Humber regional plan. The hon.”
“I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Benton. May I say how much I enjoyed the debates that you chaired in the previous Parliament and how much I look forward to such debates in this one? I congratulate the Minister on achieving his place on the Front Bench. I must say that I felt a little frisson as hon. Members said, “I look to the Minister for answers on these questions,” or, “I look forward to the Minister’s response on this,” and then realised that it was not me this time but him. I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) on introducing the debate in a very measured and well-informed way. As he said, the answers from the Minister are more important than the questions, so I intend to give the Minister as much time as possible to answer the questions that hon. Members have asked.”
“We are right at the start of this Parliament, but within three, four or five years—before its end—the consequences of the changes that we are discussing this afternoon will be serious for many young families across the country and very clear to them when they consider how to vote at the next election.”
“My fourth question to the Minister is therefore: when will the scheme be in place? My fifth question is this: will there or will there not be new money for the scheme, or will it be top-sliced as in previously published plans, and taken from local government budgets? I shall answer my sixth question myself to save the Minister the trouble. What is the new Government’s policy on housing for the future, and what are they saying to those young people who want to move out of their parents’ house and set up home for themselves? The answer is clear: no new homes, and a capital “NO” to new affordable homes. Since the two parties got into Government, they have been waving two fingers at those who need decent, affordable, secure homes for the future and at those who aspire to move into and buy their own homes.”
“In year three it will increase again; and the total over the six years will be £5.25 billion—the equivalent of an extra £320 on the average band D property council tax. The system will rob some councils in order to pay others. Those hon. Members whose constituencies include county council areas should remember that although county councils are not planning authorities and are not responsible for housing, they will bear the brunt of the cuts through the switch to district councils, which will get the cash. It must be obvious to anyone that if the scheme ever sees the light of day—if DCLG Ministers can persuade the Treasury to put it in place—it will lead to council tax chaos. It will blow the Chancellor’s Budget promise of a council tax freeze out of the water.”
“The idea is that that would cost £250 million in the first year. It was meant to be funded by switching the housing and planning delivery grant, but that amounted to £135 million this year and it went in the Chancellor’s first swathe of cuts. There is no new money for this proposed incentive scheme. In years two, three, four, five and six—the scheme is meant to last six years—it will be top-sliced from local government grant through the formula system at a rate of about £250 million a year. A £250 million cut in the local authority grant system is the equivalent of a 1% rise in council tax. It is not only £250 million a year, however. The effect is cumulative, so the cost in the second year will be £250 million plus another £250 million.”
“The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The framework for regional spatial strategies had been legislated for by the House and that remains the case. However, questions arise about the extraordinary letter sent by the new Secretary of State. I turn to a point that at least two Members raised this afternoon: the desire to move from a planning-led system to an incentive-based system. There is certainly a case for incentives in the system. It can be said that the housing and planning delivery grant and the extra funding for growth areas and growth points were insufficiently sharp to do the job on their own, but they were an important part of the system and I am sorry to see this year’s housing and planning grant go. However, the Government’s idea of a council tax match at 100% for every new home built is an 18-carat con—just consider the money!”
“I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to one of the best jobs in government. All of us who are passionate about housing are disappointed that the new Government have downgraded housing and that the Housing Minister no longer attends Cabinet. On homelessness, does he accept that co-ordination is fine, but we need to build more new affordable housing to tackle the problem? Some £230 million of cuts this year is a bad start. When the £6 billion of cuts were first announced, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told the House that the Government were “putting more money than the previous Government did into social housing.” —[ Official Report , 26 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 160.] Is that true or false?”
“Why did Ministers not make an announcement about the first £230 million of cuts to the affordable housing investment programme instead of sneaking them out on the Homes and Communities Agency website? Do they not accept that the hardest-hit areas are the poorest, and that the poorest families will be hit first? Given that the Prime Minister said this week that the Government’s cuts will be open, responsible and fair, can the Minister not see that that fails each one of those three tests?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw your attention to today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph ? It announces a planning policy change on so-called garden grabbing. May I ask you to investigate the circumstances of this case, which appear to be of selective leaking and spin, and will you report to the House your views on that and your views in general on announcements being made to journalists before they are made to Members of the House?”
“The plan-making stage of the local development framework is therefore the time at which important decisions must be taken locally about such things as the need for local infrastructure and the need for additional land for housing, businesses and jobs, or a greater range of leisure activities for an area. Discussions need to be held about how necessary but perhaps unpopular developments are best planned for and provided in a local area. That, in my view, is the most important stage, where public views need to be made to count.”
“The 2004 Act reformed the local planning system and the plan-making system. It introduced local development frameworks that would be prepared by local planning authorities. Whatever one might call local plans that have the democratic endorsement of an elected planning authority, they are at the centre of the system, so the local development framework is hugely important. We must have a policy and plan-led decisions, including decisions on specific applications, so that the necessary decisions, which are not always popular and easy to take, can be dealt with.”
“Lady was most concerned—planning at a local level, principally under the town and country planning network—as to the national planning system and the new Infrastructure Planning Commission. As an aside, may I say that her comments about the IPC spoke volumes about the contradictions that run throughout her party’s planning proposals? She says that her party proposes to abolish the IPC but retain its expertise, but that is a contradiction in terms. Such a statement simply creates uncertainty and a lack of clarity for the many people who are concerned about these matters and who want sound, clear and credible proposals from her party against which they may judge the policies that we have put in place. Let me return to the main substance of the hon. Lady’s speech: local accountability for local planning decisions.”
“Accountability must be at the heart of any planning system if it is to command confidence and if the decisions taken as part of it are to be sustainable and acceptable, even if they are not supported by all interests, because in many cases that simply cannot happen. Accountability was at the heart of the reforms that we put in place through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and, particularly with regard to national planning decisions on nationally important infrastructure, through the Planning Act 2008. As accountability is a central tenet and requirement of the planning system, many of our reforms have been designed specifically to improve public accountability and public involvement. That applies equally to the tier of planning about which the hon.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate and taking full advantage of the early conclusion of the previous business. I know that she is an active local MP. She represents a constituency that, in large part, I sought to represent in 1992, although unfortunately I was not elected. It is my home area and, as she said, I spent many of my school days there. I was slightly disappointed that her speech was not rooted in constituency concerns but ranged more widely across planning policy, but let me try to deal with the points that she raised. The question of accountability is at the heart of the hon. Lady’s concerns.”
“I shall move on to improvements, which the hon. Lady may be interested to note. First, on the role of statutory consultees, we have set out and, following a consultation, now produced an updated and strengthened policy statement, so that we improve the arrangements regarding when and over what those organisations that either need to be consulted, or it is desirable to consult, should have influence. She will know about that issue in relation to the role of the Environment Agency, flooding risk and the important expert assessment that it can bring to any potential planning application. She will know also the role that it now plays in the overhauled system of decisions on developments that might be proposed in potential flood-risk areas.”
“It is no surprise that a major national construction company described the plans as “scary as hell”; it is no surprise that the British Property Federation describes some of the measures in her proposed regime as “a recipe for chaos”; and it is no surprise that the British Chambers of Commerce says: “On balance, we question whether the Conservative proposals do enough to deliver a planning system that underpins short-term recovery and long-term economic development.” The hon. Lady does not speak for her party on those issues, but she is well informed and an expert on them, so I suggest that she takes a long, hard look at those proposals, because quite honestly they risk bringing down the shutters on the development and long-term prosperity that many areas, including hers in North Yorkshire, need to look forward to.”
“Lady describes as Labour’s planning regime, but I have to say that there are fundamental flaws in the Conservatives’ proposed planning regime, and not just in the eyes of planners, but in the eyes of businesses, investors and house builders—and in the eyes of local authorities that understand that their proper role is not simply to say no to anything that comes on to their desk.”
“Each local authority, as part of their preparation of the local plan, has to prepare a statement of community involvement at the outset, so that the council can set out clearly the approach that it will take to involving and informing local communities from the outset. The statement covers the whole plan-making process, from early scoping and the options right up to the point at which any plans are submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination in public. I am happy to accept that, in the view of planners, there are still weaknesses in what the hon.”
“They may not be popular, but decisions need to be taken; that is part of the responsibility of any elected council. The hon. Lady rightly described that as being at the centre of the planning system and planning responsibility. As she said, it is about balancing environmental, economic and social considerations. Before I finish on the hon. Lady’s major concern about the role of local councillors and MPs, let me touch on four or five areas where we have taken steps, particularly over the past couple of years, to do exactly what she has been urging, essentially reinforcing the accountability and openness of the system and ensuring the involvement of local people.”
“In other words, the local authority makes a majority of decisions that hold, and wins the majority of cases that go to the Planning Inspectorate. It is much better placed to do so if it has done the job of putting a clear plan, and a clear set of local policies, in place, as a reference point for itself and as an important reference point for the inspectorate. The hon. Lady describes what is happening in her area as half-hearted consultation, and mentions outcomes that are uncertain. She should look hard at her local authorities and at whether they have done the job of making sure that local people are properly informed and know what is going on, and have done the job of putting together proper policies and plans so that applications can be considered properly. Applications have to be considered.”
“If a clear plan is in place, the planning authority will use it as a principal reference point from which to take guidance on the sort of decisions that are to be taken. It will also be relevant to, and a material consideration in, any Planning Inspectorate inquiry into an application. If I may say so, the hon. Lady characterised the planning system in quite an ill-informed and illegitimate way. The fact is that a large majority of planning decisions are taken by the local planning authority and are not challenged or taken to appeal, and do not lead to a Planning Inspectorate inquiry. The majority of cases that reach the Planning Inspectorate, where a judgment is made, are found in favour of the local authority, or are simply dismissed.”