Clause 17 - Statement of community involvement
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 292, in
clause 17, page 10, line 16, after 'persons', insert 'or businesses'.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 200, in
clause 17, page 10, line 16, at end insert
'live in the area covered by the local development scheme or'.
No. 201, in
clause 17, page 10, line 18, leave out 'their area' and insert
'the area covered by the development scheme'.
No. 231, in
clause 17, page 10, line 24, at end insert—
'(4) the Secretary of State may issue guidance to local planning authorities on the nature and extent of the community involvement to be provided in a statement of community involvement.'.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
Clause 17 moves from the technicalities of what is in the plans and what documents have to be produced to how the community is to be involved.
The lead amendment is a probing amendment. In a sense, we are discussing the clause in a vacuum. We have already teased out of the Minister the fact that he has appointed the consultants Llewellyn Davies to advise on the framework of the community involvement. It is regrettable that the Bill is being rushed through the House and that we are therefore discussing these matters in the absence of the consultants' report. The Minister said that he would let us have sight of it before the Bill passed through all its stages and I therefore make a special plea to him that it should be available in reasonable time before Report. It would be helpful to know from Government business managers when that is likely to be. Will it be before or after the half-term break?
In the absence of the consultants' report, we are left to speculate about what is in the Government's mind in respect of the statement of community involvement. The amendment attempts to probe whether business will have a role. Businesses have a vital economic interest in what is planned for their area and they should be involved in drawing up the plans and
documents, but it is not clear from the clause whether they will be involved.
Amendment No. 288 refers to
''the economic development plan which has been adopted by the authority and the Regional Economic Strategy for the region in which the area of the authority is situated.''
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I apologise, Mr. Pike. I am on the wrong page in my notes. That is the problem with being absent.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
Amendment No. 200 was also tabled to tease out from the Minister who will be involved and who will be entitled to be involved in the community statement. Will it be those who own property in the area, who live in the area, who have a business in the area? We need answers to those questions. Amendment No. 201 also seeks to discover whether it is those who live in the area or those who live outside but who have businesses in the area who are covered by the development scheme.
Through amendment No. 231 the hon. Member for Ludlow wants the Secretary of State to issue guidance. We know all about guidance as it appears throughout the Bill, but as time goes on and things become more complex it is important for the local authorities who draw up the schemes and plans to have a precise idea what the statement will involve.
The Minister will no doubt have thought fairly carefully about what sections of the community will be involved, what role they will have in a particular area, and whether and how they will be consulted. He resisted my amendment on statements of community involvement for a region. I ask him to consider best practice, which will allow us to see how each local authority carries out the important function of preparing its statement of community involvement. Preparations will vary from one community to another, and we want to ensure that best practice is followed, because unless the local community feels involved it will become alienated from the planning system and more and more disenchanted with local authorities and other bodies involved in the system.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley, Conservative)
One thing that is becoming apparent to local government is that it is required to consult on just about everything. Consultation involves community involvement, and there is a distinct feeling of consultation fatigue. I want to support my hon. Friend on the importance of the broad spectrum. Local authorities should be made absolutely aware of some of the basic requirements, which must include types of individuals.
The Minister will know from his 11 years on a planning committee that there are certain individuals whose lives seem to revolve around their interest in planning and planning objections. They turn up for every planning committee meeting, but they are not representative of the community. The business community, which is so busy at the moment trying
to earn enough money to pay its taxes, is inclined to glance at proposals and ignore them unless a specific point, which may relate only to it, hits it.
My hon. Friend is after an understanding that the Government are prepared to pressurise local authorities into involving business and the real community. When many people talk about the community, they forget that the business community provides the finance that directly or indirectly provides the buildings that come from the planning.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that the more one studies the Bill, the more one thinks it premature not only because no regional assemblies have been elected but because the necessary preparatory work—he mentioned consultancy—which the Government have been doing has not been concluded.
The Committee has been cut down to 12 sittings, which seemed to mean 12 two-and-a-half-hour sittings. In just over an hour's time, we will probably have finished the sixth sitting, and we will have been required to complete consideration of parts 1 and 2.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The seriousness of what my hon. Friend is saying lies in the fact that the Bill hangs on parts 1 and 2. The Government's programme will mean that we have discussed less than half of part 1 and less than half of part 2 when the guillotine falls today. The two most important parts of the Bill will not have been properly discussed in Committee.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)
I agree, but in the time available, I want to be as constructive as possible. Although I have put my name to amendment No. 292, which I stand by for reasons that I have explained, I want to help the Minister. It is just possible that in legal terminology the word ''persons'' includes businesses, although I do not know whether that is the case. If it is the case, so be it, but even then it would send the right signal to businesses, which we all want to help, to include the word ''businesses''. It would be a good gesture, even if it were found not to be legally necessary.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne with great interest. He is on to some good points with amendments Nos. 200 and 201. I see no reason why that provision should not be written for those people who live or have businesses in the development area under consideration. I am really trying to be helpful to the Minister and the Government. Such provision would send out the right signals concerning the importance that they—we hope—attach to public co-operation in the exercise of town and country planning laws.
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to refer to sending the right signals. Amendment No. 292 may well be unnecessary. The Minister could well say that ''persons'' in law covers businesses, and I would accept that. Equally, he might say that we would add unnecessary words. However, for the purposes of this afternoon's sitting, we should probe the Government on their view of business rather than just accept that inclusion. Some important signals have to be sent for
several good reasons relating to planning. I support the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said that it was a good idea to send the right signals to businesses. The amendment also touches on another aspect of such signals. We must send the right signals to protesters. When a business states that it wants to see whatever is suggested go ahead under the planning procedure, I am very weary indeed of hearing protestors say, ''Business would say, that wouldn't it? It wants to make a profit out of us.'' I invite the Minister to agree that it is important for us to flag up the fact that businesses need to be successful.
One purpose of a plan must be to assist businesses. Again, I fall back on arguments about Heathrow airport, terminal 5 and the forthcoming runway as an example of what concerns me. When it is suggested that a new terminal or a new runway is built, one can predict what certain people will say. There will be a furious outcry as people say, ''We don't want this here,'' for various environmental reasons. The consultation refers to people who seem to have an interest, and I will say more about that when I come to the relevant amendments.
When a business such as BAA plc, or British Airways or any other airline that uses a facility as important as Heathrow, says that it believes in the proposals of a strategic plan for the future, be it a national, local or regional issue, we should recognise that it is not only entitled to do so, but it should do so. It is crucial that we listen to business. We should stamp very firmly on those who sneer and always say, ''All they want to do is increase their profits''. I make no apologies for wanting BAA and BA to make ever more profits.
I hasten to add that I have no interests to declare. I have never owned shares in BA or BAA. I have no personal interest in the matter; I mention it only because those companies and other airlines generate about 120,000 jobs in the area. If that is not a strategic matter that should be looked after by a plan, what is?
The amendment is important because we are flagging up the fact that, far from its being somehow underhand for a business to have a say, it is crucial that it should do so. Business interest in much strategic planning is fundamental to the viability of the community and the continued prosperity or recovery from recession that the plan may be designed to achieve. Although the Minister might ultimately say that ''persons'' means businesses, I hope that he will accept, and I encourage him to agree, that businesses play a vital and legitimate role. Indeed, we should encourage them rather than suggest that they are acting against the interests of local people.
Amendment No. 200 relates to consultation. I agonised over whether to amend the Bill in such a way that it referred to people who ''live in the area or have an interest'' or whether to remove the phrase ''have an interest''. I am weary of the self-appointed few who claim to speak for everyone when they oppose projects such as Heathrow, but who almost never live in my constituency. They draw attention to themselves because of the row that they make, their misleading
claims and the nonsense that they speak. It is easy to home in on such people because they appear to have an interest—my word, they have an obsession and think of nothing else. The phraseology in the clause makes it easy to say that they should be consulted on issues such as Heathrow airport, but if the Government encourage and consult such people, the result will be mass redundancies in my constituency, which I will never allow.
That is why the amendment refers to people who ''live in the area''. We are all used to dealing with the silent majority, and we must make it clear that we want to hear from individuals rather than people who are members of something. The great self-appointed chairman—or chairperson, if that makes the Minister happier—of a protest group thinks that he has the right to see the Minister because his group represents this, that and the other even when it patently does not. We want to hear from all the ordinary people—the individuals who live in the area—but we must first get past those who claim to have an interest. Amendment No. 200 would go some way towards achieving that. Again, if the Minister accepts the point, but does not like the wording, I would be perfectly happy to hear an alternative.
Amendment No. 201 may look pedantic, but it is not. Under the Bill, those who should be consulted—whether or not they live in the area—must
''have an interest in matters relating to development in their area.''
If that stays as it is, people will have a splendid invitation to indulge in even more nimbyism than they already do. They could take the phrase ''in their area'' to mean where they live, but a plan may cover a big area. Those with an interest in the little bit where they live may support its principle and say, ''Yes, a runway is a good idea.'' However, they might add, ''But not in my area. Put it somewhere else.''
The amendment would require that when those who live in an area and who have an interest are consulted and make representations, they must focus on the whole area covered by the plan rather than just the little area in which they live. That would ensure that the consultations were about the whole area and that people did not say ''Leave my little bit out and put the project somewhere else.'' We suffer enough from nimbyism, without legislation adding to the problem.
I know that the Minister takes all our points seriously, but these have real substance. All Opposition Members support consultation, but we must involve as many people as possible and focus their minds on all the interests involved in a plan. All too often, people focus only on the environmental downside.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
In the clause and the amendments, we deal for the first time with the statement of community involvement, so it might be useful if I expand on our approach. Everyone agrees that the community must be effectively involved in preparing and reviewing plans, and the hon. Member for Cotswold made precisely that point when he referred to legitimacy and ownership. I fully concur. That
engagement with the community is also crucial when the authority considers applications at the coal face—dealing with planning permission and applications, for example—so that all relevant viewpoints are taken into account. However, the level and quality of community engagement varies, to say the least, across our planning system. Some local planning authorities—this is not necessarily a partisan point—have well developed mechanisms for engaging people at all stages, from the preparation of a plan to the determination of applications. In other authorities there is far less recognition of the purpose and benefits of involving the public.
A major aim of the planning reform agenda is for local planning to be founded on the aspirations of the community and for community participation to be put higher up the agenda for local planning authorities. The SCI is a statement of the authority's policy on engaging the public in the preparation of local development documents, and in the exercise of the authority's functions under part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That relates to control over development, such as, for example, the consideration of applications for planning permission. The statement of community involvement affects both ends of the local planning spectrum, from the development and formulation of policies that go into the plans, all the way through to the development control of the planning application process at the other end.
The Secretary of State will set out in regulations minimum standards for community engagement, in respect of both the LDD preparation and, to use the shorthand, the development control functions—planned applications, and so on. Such minimum standards will apply to all local planning authorities in England, will be based on current good practice, and are not intended to create unreasonable burdens for local authorities. I would suggest that the greater the community participation at the earliest stage in the drawing up of local development documents and in various aspects of local planning, the greater the legitimacy of the subsequent decisions made on planning applications. The hon. Member for Cotswold is entirely right that we have engaged Llewellyn-Davies, which is now in the final stages of research to identify both what the benchmarks could be on good practice, and examples of good practice in cases in which the standards have been achieved. I shall ensure that that publication, a summary of it, or some form of it that is useful, is available to all hon. Members as early as is physically possible.
For obvious reasons, I cannot promise that before the end of this Committee. I have given myself the target of before Report Stage. As an ex-member of the usual channels, I would not dare stand up as a Minister and suggest what those channels had determined would happen on Report. Some of my hon. Friends think that ex-Whips have greater favour with the current Whips Office. However, I am living proof that that is not the case. I fully understand that, temporarily or otherwise, I am out of that loop. I am a Minister, not a Whip or a member of the usual
channels. The hon. Gentleman will therefore have to seek guidance elsewhere on when Report will take place. However, I shall try to ensure that a summary, or the report itself, is available to hon. Members as early as possible.
There will also be support for the benchmarks in what comes out of that publication with the revision of PPG 12 on developing plans and the ''Making Plans'' guide, which is a document from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the statement of community involvement, the local planning authority will be able to set additional standards for public engagement over and above those contained in regulations. The SCI will define those additional standards as appropriate to local circumstances, and set out the actions that the local planning authority will undertake to meet the standards that are set. That will be in addition to the statutory procedures and safeguards under part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and will continue to apply as under that Act, in respect of local development document preparation. I have no idea what the final details of the guidance will be, but I exhort local planning authorities to be a tad more generous in the notification process. There is no notification unless a pathway leads to part of the garden that backs on to a particular development site, even if that garden is just 1 yd or so from it, because the building on that site has no direct connection with the development site. We must recognise that people have a wider interest.
The SCI may also need to explain how the local planning authority intends to apply the prescribed benchmarks. The statement could also specify which bodies and authorities would encourage developers to consult in advance of submitting applications for significant development, although that must be seen in the context of other elements under the development and control dimension of the Bill. Developers will not face any sanctions if they do not comply, as local planning authorities will still consult them once an application has been made. We will discuss related issues later. However, we will encourage developers to undertake such consultation on the basis that it will improve the quality of planning applications and may smooth the path to planning permission.
As I said, we envisage that each authority's SCI will set out arrangements and standards to be achieved in involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of all parts of the local development framework, and that they will offer simple and clear guidelines that will enable the community to know, and have confidence in, when and how the planning authority will consult it about planning applications.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
We have discussed many times the powers of the Secretary of State and the RPB, who will dictate the development schemes and documents from the top. Will the Minister say what weight will be given to guidance from the Secretary of State and the region as opposed to the views and wishes of local people in drawing up these local development plans and documents?
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
In essence, the Secretary of State's guidance is about the framework and processes, not
the substance and detail, which is the development and control dimension. Under the local development scheme, the substance and detail will be left to the local planning authority, with all its appropriate local development documents, or will be approved by the Secretary of State—through the mystical board that we will discuss later. The final decision and appeals process is left to the local planning authority, as at present. I advise hon. Members not to get lost in lending different weight to different aspects of the overall planning, development and control framework. Different elements have different weights at different parts of the process, whether at the planning stage or at the tail end of the development and control stage.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
This is a critical point. House-building targets are part of an important national policy. If local people make it clear that the target that the RPB has handed down to them is excessive, what opportunity will they and the SCI have to express that belief and for it to be included in local plans?
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
The short answer is none. The statement of community involvement will not be about reflecting the views of the local planning authority or local people on particular policies in the RSS. I made it clear that the statement of community involvement will be about how communities will be involved in the formulation and gestation of the local development documents at one end to the local planning framework at the other. There is clearly a role for local people and local bodies such as local planning authorities during the formulation period of the regional spatial strategy, but for obvious reasons that I will not repeat—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to do so—we determined that it would not be appropriate to have a statement of community involvement at RSS level given its spatial and regional concept.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
Can the Minister confirm, to be helpful to the Committee, that the SCI is all about process and not about policy?
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
It is clearly about the process by which the community, which I shall define in a moment, has an input into the development of planning documents in the local development framework and the decision-making process of the local planning authority. It is therefore about how the community can be involved, which is why—funnily enough—it is called a statement of community involvement. It is not about a specific interpretation of local, national or regional policy by the local community, however that is defined, or by the local planning authority. It is a process and a structure through which local people can be engaged in the planning process, and bring with them their own interpretation of specific policies, whether national, regional or local.
It would, however, be wholly inappropriate for the London borough of Harrow or the London borough of Barnet, or any other borough, to say in their statement of community involvement something along the lines of, ''We have determined that we will have nothing to do with Mayor Livingstone's London plan, so if the community supports that plan, we will disregard anything that it wants to say in relation to
the gestation of local development documents or the development control process.'' That sort of specific, policy-focused element should have no part in the statement of community involvement. The SCI is a part of a process to empower and unlock people's ability to get involved and participate in both ends of the planning process.
Amendment No. 292 raises the issue of whether a local planning authority can set out its policies for involving businesses in the preparation of local development documents and in—to refer to it in shorthand—the development control and planning permission function. I assure the hon. Member for Spelthorne that the term ''person'' encompasses bodies, organisations and businesses as well as individuals. I also assure him that local authorities, in preparing their local development documents, will consult businesses along with other particular groups, as they are encouraged to do now through PPG 12. They are also encouraged to do that in ''Making Plans''—a jazzy little document about ''Good Practice in Plan Preparation and Management of the Development Plan Process.'' That document includes private businesses, local voluntary and community groups and local people among those groups that the Government expect local planning authorities to consult.
I endorse, in general terms, what the hon. Gentleman said about businesses. The notion that those engaged in business or economic activity in a particular local or regional economy have no role to play in the determination of the future in planning or in other aspects is absolute nonsense. That does not afford the business sector any more or less legitimacy than any other element of the community to voice a view or play a role in the local planning world, but it is beyond doubt that the business community and those engaged in economic activity in a particular area should have a role.
I deprecate the suggestion that there is something fishy or suspicious about those who run businesses or are engaged in economic activity becoming involved in or having concern for their local area: that area is, after all, their local economic base and their local market. The business community anywhere in the country is an important part of the wider community and should be treated as such, and in the context of SCIs, that will be the case.
Amendment No. 200 would make express provision for every SCI to cover residents of the authority's areas. As currently drafted, the clause requires the SCI to set out the authority's policies on involving
''persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to the development in their area.''
Amendment No. 201 would specify that it should cover persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in
''the area covered by the development scheme.''
I have already explained at some length how the SCI will operate and what we intend that it should specify, and I hope that I will, in your judgment, Mr. Pike,
have pre-empted a clause stand part debate. I am, however, happy to confirm that the residents of an authority's area will be covered in the regulations setting minimum standards for community engagement in consultation and participation. We also intend to encourage authorities, through guidance, to set out in their SCI what more they will do in that respect. Under clause 18(2)(a), local planning authorities will be required to have regard for the guidance when preparing their statements of community involvement. Additionally, SCIs will be subject to independent examination, which will provide for the local planning authorities' proposals to be tested. We do not think that amendment No. 200 is required. SCIs will cover the residents of the authorities' areas.
On amendment No. 201, it might help if I explain how the Bill's various provisions fit together. An authority's local development scheme will set out the local development documents that are to be prepared. Taken together, the documents must set out an authority's policies, however expressed, relating to the development and use of land in its area. The statement of community involvement will set out the authority's policies on involving the community in the preparation of its local development documents.
Those provisions mean that there is no doubt that all an authority's area will be covered by the local development documents and that an authority's entire area will be covered by the statement of community involvement. I confirm that there will be only one statutory statement of community involvement. Authorities might wish to set out different policies for different local development documents. They will be underpinned by the minimum standards required by regulation in the SCI.
Amendment No. 231 would give the Secretary of State the express power to issue guidance to local planning authorities on the nature and extent of the community involvement to be provided in a statement of community involvement. As I said, regulations will set out the minimum standards of consultation and participation that will apply to local development documents and they will build on the current arrangements that I mentioned. We have commissioned research from Llewelyn-Davies, which is in the final stage of its research to identify the possible minimum standards and examples of those standards being achieved through real-life good practice. We are well down the line of establishing the regulations, which means that amendment No. 231 is not necessary. For the reasons that I suggested, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister because he has been incredibly helpful and it is useful to have what we have been told on record.
I referred to best practice in my opening remarks, and the Minister said that that varies greatly from authority to authority when he talked about community involvement under the 1990 Act. Will the Minister undertake to disseminate best practice and to incorporate that in the guidance when the system is up
and running? That would allow us to bring the worst local authorities up toward the best.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
I go quite a way with the hon. Gentleman but I would have to consider whether it would be worth incorporating that subsequently into guidance. PPG12 is explicit on how to develop plans and ''Making Plans'' is a practical guide containing best practice. I commend that document to the Committee although it is not part of the guidance. I would have to consider whether to use those two documents, perhaps by incorporation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will consider it because the issue is important.
To hark back to an earlier debate, one reason why it is appropriate that the provisions are explicit in the Bill—as are those relating to local development documents that will be part of the development plan—is that we can afford the protection of guidance and try to disseminate, and encourage, at least the minimum standard, and try to get all authorities above that benchmark, as Llewelyn-Davies will say when its report comes out.
I apologise to you and thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Pike, during our discussion of the amendments. It is the first time that statements of community involvement have been considered and given their importance , I thought it appropriate to talk now about what we are trying to do with SCIs, rather than during a clause stand part debate. I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment.
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister said that his comments ranged somewhat wider than the amendments. Have you reached a view on whether to allow a clause stand part debate? I could address issues arising from the Minister's comments now because the debate has moved wider, or I could keep them until the clause stand part debate, if you are minded to allow that.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Minister answered many points. I have listened to the debate and the clause is important, although it is relatively short and tight. I shall allow a relatively short stand part debate but I hope that hon. Members will respect that judgment because the Minister made several points clearly. I hope that that will curtail the length of the stand part debate.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
In dealing with the amendments, the Minister has been incredibly helpful. As he made clear, the statement of community involvement is an important part of the planning system, and will help people to feel involved. It is understood that the Minister will produce some clear guidance on that, and there already are clear instructions on how that involvement is to be achieved in the document that he mentions. On that basis, and having explored the issue in considerable detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)
I have given guidance on the clause stand part debate, and I hope that hon. Members will respect it.
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I have just one matter to discuss. It follows on from some of the points that I made in the debate on the amendments, but I was deliberately trying to confine myself to the amendments only.
As you rightly said, Mr. Pike, this is an extremely important part of the Bill. Everyone in Committee—indeed, the House—would say that the more we involved the community in the process, the better, and the more likely it will be that the community will feel a sense of ownership of the plan produced by the experts. I welcome that, and am not speaking against the clause. However, simply saying that something will happen does not mean that it will. The Minister has said what should happen under the Bill, but have he, his Department or anyone in Government made any attempt at being proactive in helping the community to get involved?
As I mentioned earlier, if the Bill simply says that a formal system of community involvement is to take place, it will all too readily take place within the framework of what is available at the moment, rather than what we should have for the future. The list of consultees will be a list of pressure groups, almost all of which will be against things. I do not believe that that is good and serious community involvement. We had a debate earlier about parish councils, and I shall not re-open it, but has the Minister given any thought to encouraging the creation of parish councils where they do not exist?
There is provision in legislation—unless it has been repealed, and I do not think that is has—for community councils to be set up in areas such as the Minister's own. I say that because such councils would allow democratic representation in the consultation process. The huge difference between the parish council and the pressure group or residents association is that the parish council has democratic credentials. It has been elected to speak on behalf of the people. That is in contrast to the typical consultation process. I shall give an example of how that process can so readily go wrong. It refers to a small matter, but it makes the point beautifully.
In a street in my constituency there are some trees, some of which are held to be dangerous and rotten. The county council, quite rightly, addressed whether the trees should be cut down, and finally agreed to consult. It noticed that a protest group on cutting down the trees has been set up, and as a result, decided that the consultation with the public should be made not through local county councillors, although the county council will set it up, but through the pressure group. The people who turned up at the meeting to elect the officers of the pressure group were—surprise, surprise—those against cutting down the trees, and the county council has gone on to say that ''consultation'' means meeting representatives of the pressure group in the street to consider the trees.
My mailbag tells me that a number of people scattered about the place want the wretched things cut down, but a formal process of consultation that would
meet the requirements of the Bill has been undertaken, and a group of people who appear to be speaking on behalf of the community is to be consulted. That is not good enough, and I hope that the Minister will listen to this argument and see that there is a role for a proactive contribution to the improvement of the process of consultation. It works well in some cases, but it works very badly in others, and it works worst in cases where there are no organisations such as parish, community and town councils, because that means that democracy is lacking and self-appointed people participate. I hope that the Minister is giving thought to how to improve consultation.
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
We always seek to be proactive, to find examples of best practice and to assist in aid where that is necessary: that is the case not only in the context of this Bill, but more broadly. Getting Llewelyn-Davies to go out and find best practice where it exists is a part of that process, as is coming up with documents such as ''Making Plans''. That paper goes above and beyond guidance or anything that we need to do, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 62 which refers to some excellent participation events for the development of the Cotswold local plan, which I am sure that I will be able to commend to the Committee.
In clause 80, we seek the leave of the House to get to a stage where we can get grants for advice and assistance to other bodies, such as Planning Aid, that will do what is formally set out in the Bill. Over the coming couple of weeks, we will determine how we resource such bodies; that will happen when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement on the communities plan.
I am mindful of what you said earlier, Mr. Pike, so I will say no more.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.