Clause 1 - Regional Spatial Strategy
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
11:00 am
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I have no difficulty with that. I was not arguing for a blanket move in that direction, which is why I said that if the Government consider the principle of moving powers appropriate, we could have a debate about that among ourselves and consider properly drafted amendments relating to appropriate powers on Report.
I readily accept that not all 38 amendments—even if they were all in order—or even all 200, are appropriate. However, if we agree the principle of several, we can have a debate. I do not want an individual debate about each of the 38 amendments, although I am happy to sit through one if anybody else is. I do not want to detain the Committee by considering whether each amendment is appropriate. If the Government indicate that they accept a general principle, we will work sensibly and decide on the amendments that we want and that we believe to be right.
There is no distinction between the Secretary of State's existing powers and these new powers. If devolution is for real, we want to question not only the new powers, but existing powers—we must get at both sets. Let us be clear that we are discussing the phrases in the Bill that say that the Secretary of State has the power to direct, prescribe or require. That is
real centralised stuff. I am not blaming this Government for that, because successive Governments have used those words to give more power to the centre. However, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has found 200 examples in the Bill of executive powers given to the Secretary of State. The Government want a devolved arrangement in which regional assemblies are substantive, but 200 references to executive powers given to the Secretary of State in a short Bill such as this represents the exact opposite of devolution.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in general. Although I would be grateful if he gave us a view on all 38 amendments, I do not want that in detail. The work must have been done to determine how many amendments are technically defective and how many we could pursue in the future.