Clause 14
Housing and Regeneration Bill
4:00 pm
Grant Shapps (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Welwyn Hatfield, Conservative)
I was outlining the purpose of the amendment, which more or less says that formal consultation should take place. Rather than being the informal process that the Minister referred to, whereby this benign agency and benevolent Minister in the future always look to do what is best for the local areas, it should be enshrined in law. A presumption of consultation should be built into the Bill; indeed, more than just a presumption—a requirement. That is what the amendment would do.
It is true to say that from everything we know of the Bill so far, much of its structure replicates that of, in some cases, the authority that it might replace—in this case, the local authority. As such, it can circumvent a large number of requirements that are incumbent on a local authority before it pushes through its plans. I am thinking of district or local plans, which are years in the making. The plans go out to consultation and the authorities talk to local people, consider a variety of different aspects, publish the plan in draft and then publish the final copy. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved, at one time or another, with their area’s district or borough local plan. We know that that document takes a huge amount of time, energy and effort to prepare. As its requirement to exist is already laid down in law, it is reasonable that that should mean something. The problem with the clause without amendment No. 2 is that the Homes and Communities Agency can ride right across whatever has been decided locally. That endangers the fabric of local democracy—the purpose of electing people who carry out a district plan or, depending on the area, a local plan—and the good work that is done in the plan, and there would be no point in having it in the first place.