My Lords, I find myself in a frustrating position: the Bill that I would like to talk about but cannot is in the Government’s draft legislative programme, and the Bill that I shall talk about is not. To explain, the Climate Change Bill is one of the most important in the draft legislative programme, but, having had the privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee scrutinising the draft Bill under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, I do not want to pre-empt anything that the report, which will be published in the first week of August, will say; therefore, I shall merely welcome the fact that it is in the programme.
The Bill that is not in the draft legislative programme is the marine Bill. The Minister said that there are complex issues to be considered and that that is why the Bill is not in the programme, but in 2004 the Government made a commitment to introduce a marine Bill. Such a Bill has broad political support across all the parties, so it is particularly disappointing that, yet again, it is not in the programme. There have been Green Papers and White Papers, and the draft Bill published in March 2007 set out in detail the areas that the marine Bill would cover. The consultation closed in June, and my party accepts that it undoubtedly threw up complex issues, but it also highlighted the urgency of getting something in this area into the legislative programme.
There are increasing pressures on the marine environment, not least the issue of energy and the fact that energy consents need to be speeded up. The marine Bill would have enabled that. There are also conflicts; for example, the extractive industries are extracting huge amounts of aggregates from the seabed, while the flooding of coastal areas and biodiversity issues are unresolved. There are also the traditional difficulties around fishing and recreation. Given the urgency, it is hard to imagine how the marine system can continue with no planning system at all. The network of marine-protected areas proposed in the Bill is equally urgent, because climate change is now putting extra pressure on marine life. For all those reasons, the Bill is essential, and I would like the Minister to comment in more detail about why those complex issues have prevented it being introduced at least at the end of the forthcoming Session.
Two planning Bills are proposed: the Planning Reform Bill and the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill. Having chaired a planning committee for a district council for many years, I think that the Government will have to tread a fine line with the Planning Reform Bill. It is hard to see how a quango-run system for perhaps the most sensitive planning decisions that will affect people in dramatic ways is the best way to go. I fully accept that infrastructure projects have been held up. Perhaps the most classic recent example was Swale Borough Council, which held up an entire renewable energy project because of a small on-land transformer station. That is a specific example of why the planning system is not working well. When the Planning Reform Bill comes to the House, we will have profound questions about the democratic process and people’s ability to make their views heard and understood and ability to influence the system.
The Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill is probably easier to understand. It will take 30 per cent of gain from planning land away from local areas and put it into the Treasury’s coffers. It is an alternative to making the Section 106 system work properly. Many councils have run the system ineffectively. That is not an excuse to steal what is effectively local money, so there will be a lot to be said on that Bill.
The draft Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill is possibly another blow to the effectiveness of local councillors as elected representatives for their citizens. It will issue yet more guidance to local authorities, which are already suffering under enough guidance.
I refer to my Private Member’s Bill this year about the right to protest in Parliament Square. The Prime Minister talked about balancing the need, "““for public order with the right to public dissent””.—[Official Report, 3/7/07; col. 818.]"
None of the Bills on the list refers specifically to how the legislation will be repealed. I hope that it will be repealed this year. In paragraph 166 of the Green Paper The Governance of Britain, the Prime Minister and Jack Straw talk about, "““a presumption in favour of freedom of expression””."
I hope that the Government will stick by that pledge.
Government: Draft Legislative Programme
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on Government: Draft Legislative Programme.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c947-8 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:25:24 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414893
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414893
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414893