Another day, another climbdown. After offering major concessions to squeeze 42-days detention for suspected terrorists through the Commons, ministers have now given ground to defuse a Labour rebellion over their proposals to streamline the planning system.
As we report today, the Government wants to hand the final decision on major projects such as nuclear power stations and airports to a new infrastructure planning commission.
As with 42 days, there has been a flurry of ministerial activity in the run-up to a crucial vote. Before MPs debate the Planning Bill tomorrow, a series of amendments has been offered by ministers in talks with the 63 Labour MPs who have publicly opposed the Bill.
They will review how the commission works in two years and leave open the option of restoring ministerial involvement then. The sites of new nuclear power stations and airports will be pre-approved by the Government, before the commission can give the final go-ahead. People affected by compulsory purchase orders will get new rights and the work of the commission will be closely monitored by Commons select committees.
The concessions stop short of the Labour rebels' demand for ministers to retain the final say on major projects. Some of the rebels are still not happy. But others accept that the Government has moved and so ministers have probably done enough to prevent a defeat tomorrow.
There is another reason why the Government may win: it has deliberately timed the vote for the eve of Thursday's by-election in Henley after the resignation of Boris Johnson. It's a battle between the Tories and Liberal Democrats, and several MPs from both opposition parties may be out campaigning tomorrow rather than voting in the Commons. Cheeky.
I can understand the public's immediate lack of interest when planning is mentioned, but the implications of the Planning Bill on all of us cannot be ignored. I can also understand that the political excuse for these measures is that it takes too long to put large planning projects in the public domain, but there can be no excuse for not giving the public a chance to express their views. I also think it is wrong for ministers to abrogate their responsibilities to a quango. Do I detect the omission of any mention of the EU as deliberate?
Posted by: mutton jeff | Monday, 30 June 2008 at 05:22 PM