:00:44. > :00:52.What does Liam Fox's departure In the Midlands, the planning a
:00:52. > :00:58.people's causing problems for the Government. Is it a developer is a
:00:58. > :01:08.free fall in our green and pleasant land? And who runs our country, we
:01:08. > :01:08.
:01:08. > :25:54.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1486 seconds
:25:54. > :25:59.Hello again from the Midlands, where we will be asking, who runs
:25:59. > :26:04.the country, the judges or the politicians? First some concrete
:26:04. > :26:07.proposals for the Midland's countryside. Opponents of the
:26:07. > :26:13.Government's planning proposals belief our green spaces are at risk
:26:13. > :26:18.from those desperate to get the economy moving again. On the other
:26:18. > :26:28.hand, planning regulations are often described as bureaucratic.
:26:28. > :26:30.
:26:30. > :26:34.James Morris is the representative for Lyme Regis. The newly-appointed
:26:35. > :26:39.shadow housing minister and for the Liberal Democrats, the Shropshire
:26:39. > :26:48.county councillor, have a kid. She is also a member of the Shropshire
:26:48. > :26:51.hills board. After a week in which unemployment in our part of the
:26:51. > :26:57.country was confirmed that almost 9%, with a relaxation of the
:26:57. > :27:02.planning laws help the construction industry get us back to work? Our
:27:02. > :27:07.environment correspondent has been to Warwickshire to investigate.
:27:07. > :27:11.Baddesley Clinton in Warwickshire, built in the 15th century. Now,
:27:11. > :27:16.famously, this is a National Trust property with a moat, to protect
:27:16. > :27:20.those inside from attack. But these days, it is the National Trust that
:27:20. > :27:24.is on the offensive. And amongst the cream teas and gentle
:27:24. > :27:28.conversation, rebellion against the coalition Government's plans for
:27:28. > :27:33.planning. How many signatures have you got? We have had over 3,000
:27:33. > :27:38.signatures here alone and across the trust as a whole we know we are
:27:38. > :27:41.pushing 150,000, already. We are really concerned about the national
:27:41. > :27:45.planning policy framework, this draft that has come out. We are
:27:45. > :27:49.worried about the presumption in favour of economic growth above
:27:49. > :27:54.everything else. Making an enemy of the National Trust to spot some
:27:54. > :28:00.debate at the Tory party conference. He will not be surprised to learn
:28:00. > :28:05.that me and Mrs Pickles are partial to the odd scone and a warm
:28:05. > :28:11.beverage in the National Trust tea Room. But the planning system needs
:28:11. > :28:14.to be improved. There are businesses out there desperate to
:28:14. > :28:18.expand, to hire thousands of people, but they are stuck in the mud of
:28:18. > :28:23.our planning system. We will be opened to constructive ideas about
:28:23. > :28:27.how to get this right, but to those who oppose everything we do, my
:28:27. > :28:33.message is take your arguments down to the JobCentre, because we are
:28:33. > :28:37.going to get Britain back to work. Britain is not building at the
:28:37. > :28:42.moment. The Government points out that housebuilding alone is that
:28:42. > :28:47.it's the lowest level since the 1920s. They argue that red tape is
:28:47. > :28:53.stopping a development led a surge back to work. You cannot assume
:28:53. > :28:58.that 3,000 ft of offices would take approximately 3,000 people,
:28:58. > :29:02.therefore it is 3,000 jobs, simple as that. Half-an-hour down the road,
:29:02. > :29:07.this development has been going through the planning process for
:29:07. > :29:12.two and a half years. What is wrong with the process? It is far too
:29:12. > :29:18.complicated, 1,200 pages of planning legislation originally
:29:18. > :29:21.created in 1948 and added on to ever since. Interestingly, the 1948
:29:21. > :29:25.of planning acts had a presumption in favour of development, it was
:29:25. > :29:29.just after the war, when we required development. Therefore, it
:29:30. > :29:35.does require massive overhaul. But it is to be applauded, there are
:29:35. > :29:38.criticisms of it, but overall it has to be applauded.
:29:38. > :29:43.Government's plans have not only alienated the National Trust, call
:29:43. > :29:46.Conservative voters are unhappy. Even the Daily Telegraph is against
:29:46. > :29:50.this move, mounting a campaign and saying the Conservative Party is
:29:50. > :29:55.paying too much attention to developers who donate to party
:29:55. > :30:00.funds. It is fair to say that I am a supporter of the Tory party and
:30:00. > :30:04.therefore, personally, I do give a small amount of money to the Tory
:30:04. > :30:09.party. No different to what any other individual would to
:30:09. > :30:12.supporting a political party. the Government's plans are well on
:30:12. > :30:17.and four councillors on the ground of any political flavour, there is
:30:17. > :30:22.another problem. 46% of councils say they will have no core strategy
:30:22. > :30:26.in place before the new proposals arrive. According to one
:30:26. > :30:30.campaigning group, that will leave them vulnerable to poor quality
:30:30. > :30:33.proposals. It worries me that so many things have not been given his
:30:33. > :30:37.huge amount of thought, they appeared to be put together with
:30:37. > :30:43.the idea to promote the economy, which is fine, no problem with that.
:30:43. > :30:47.But the economy is a number of things, not just development.
:30:47. > :30:53.prepared councils, alienated core voters and angry demands for action
:30:53. > :30:59.on red tape, Baddesley Clinton has not seen a battle like it.
:30:59. > :31:03.It certainly has not. So, is this a charter for the developers story
:31:03. > :31:09.read back to the regeneration of the economy? There is more about
:31:09. > :31:12.this on my blog. Let us begin with the shadow housing minister,
:31:12. > :31:15.obviously the developer there in Warwick blames the red tape that
:31:15. > :31:19.was heaped upon them by your government, principally, for
:31:19. > :31:24.getting in the way or possibly 3,000 jobs, there. Nonsense, the
:31:24. > :31:28.problem in terms of its economic growth is not the planning system,
:31:28. > :31:34.it is the mismanagement of the economy. 1,200 pages in the
:31:34. > :31:37.planning legislation, you can see the case for a delay there. What
:31:37. > :31:42.happened was that for 60 years we had a planning system which has
:31:42. > :31:46.sought to reconcile growth and development. We desperately need
:31:46. > :31:50.that with a real say for local people and protection of the
:31:50. > :31:53.natural environment. What has happened is a lobby, limbs to the
:31:54. > :32:00.Conservative Party, have worked together with the Treasury to push
:32:00. > :32:04.an agenda to build any place, any time. Let me give you an example,
:32:04. > :32:11.we had a presumption in favour of brownfield development, they tour
:32:11. > :32:16.that up in favour of building anywhere, am why? Because they have
:32:16. > :32:20.said it is cheaper to build on greenfield land. I will come on to
:32:20. > :32:29.that in a moment. However, first of all, the county councils have to
:32:29. > :32:33.get their plans to get the one size fits all thing imposed on them by a
:32:33. > :32:38.Government. Are you going to have your plan in order in time in
:32:38. > :32:44.Shropshire? It is in place. Actually, we are ahead of the game.
:32:44. > :32:49.Although I am in opposition, I must applaud the plan that is in place,
:32:50. > :32:53.it has engaged parish councils, we do have evidence behind what people
:32:53. > :32:59.want and mostly, it is about housing Lowes will people -- local
:32:59. > :33:04.people across Shropshire. I think other councils will be terribly
:33:04. > :33:08.vulnerable and really ought to have got their act together. It is not
:33:08. > :33:14.just Jack that is worried about this link with the Conservative
:33:14. > :33:20.Party. From my blog at a reply says localism up my for it, these plans
:33:20. > :33:24.are biased towards developers. It is not a local agenda, it is just
:33:24. > :33:28.big business. I think that is nonsense. We have got to focus on
:33:29. > :33:32.what we are trying to solve with this policy. We have got very low
:33:32. > :33:36.levels of housebuilding in this country, inherited from the
:33:36. > :33:46.previous government, the lowest level since the 1920s. This policy
:33:46. > :33:50.is about driving growth in a balanced way. It is a balanced
:33:50. > :33:58.policy by giving local people more say about how they housing is
:33:58. > :34:03.developed. We never heard plans, there will still be -- with the
:34:03. > :34:07.neighbourhood plans, they will still be subject to planning rules.
:34:07. > :34:11.When we have already got many of these plans which are evidence
:34:12. > :34:15.based in place, a development is not just about the policy issue, it
:34:15. > :34:21.is about quality and having enough money in the system to build the
:34:21. > :34:24.houses. When people cannot get mortgages and when developers, and
:34:24. > :34:28.also housing associations, are struggling to develop on the ground,
:34:28. > :34:32.it is not going to happen. There are 97,000 planning permissions
:34:33. > :34:35.already granted in the West Midlands, so what is the problem?
:34:35. > :34:40.That is exactly right. There is enough land with planning
:34:40. > :34:48.permission to build 300,000 homes already. The problem is that the
:34:48. > :34:54.economy and the mortgage market, why have your government torn-up
:34:54. > :35:03.the Bramfield first presumption? There is enough Bramfield had to
:35:03. > :35:09.build 1.2 million homes. I am very confused about his position. He has
:35:09. > :35:16.been arguing for the bringing back of policies that have came up with
:35:16. > :35:21.incorrect numbers. Developers want the freedom to build on green field
:35:21. > :35:25.because it is cheaper. We inherited from you the lowest level of house
:35:25. > :35:29.building since the 1920s. That is a crisis, there are millions of
:35:29. > :35:33.people who cannot get on the housing ladder, there are problems
:35:33. > :35:36.with social housing that we need to tackle. I want to move on from that
:35:36. > :35:40.very important point to a particularly difficult balance that
:35:40. > :35:45.you have to strike in rural areas like Shropshire where, obviously,
:35:45. > :35:51.you want to keep the local economy there the sustainable on one hand,
:35:51. > :35:55.but in other areas you have outstanding beauty, how do we
:35:55. > :35:59.achieve that balance of preserving the BT while allowing the Community
:35:59. > :36:04.to develop? For several days we have had a policy of only allowing
:36:04. > :36:08.small numbers of houses to be built at any one time in the villages. It
:36:08. > :36:15.means that a villages remain vital, children are produced for schools,
:36:15. > :36:21.although it is not quick enough, but the plan for the area of
:36:21. > :36:30.outstanding natural beauty has worked. We do have to, 4, 6 houses
:36:30. > :36:35.being built. How would you respond to the need for that balance?
:36:35. > :36:39.for certain, but a real say for local people and protection of the
:36:39. > :36:44.natural environment, and for the Government to stop pretending that
:36:44. > :36:48.the problem of housing is planning, when it is not. This new framework
:36:48. > :36:51.for talks very clearly about sustainable development, a balance
:36:51. > :36:55.between economic development and preserving the environment. That is
:36:55. > :37:05.still at the heart of the Government's planning policy.
:37:05. > :37:07.
:37:07. > :37:12.So, who exactly is in charge here? The politicians or the lawyer's?
:37:12. > :37:16.Only last month, Stoke-on-Trent City Council gave up on its plans
:37:16. > :37:23.to cut services for deaf children because of threats of legal
:37:23. > :37:32.challenges. Last year there was an epic encounter turf with a council
:37:32. > :37:35.on the education department. Now, within the next few days, another
:37:35. > :37:39.High Court judge will rule whether Gloucestershire County Council
:37:39. > :37:44.broke the law by withdrawing funding from 10 local libraries.
:37:44. > :37:49.That legal challenge follows a storm of protest over the council's
:37:49. > :37:58.plans for the community to take them over, while the authority's
:37:58. > :38:03.local leader needs to save millions of pounds. It is a recognition that
:38:03. > :38:07.the authority is facing some really tough challenges. The second issue,
:38:07. > :38:11.as I understand it, is that we have been given the green light to
:38:11. > :38:15.continue talking to communities and those putting their business cases
:38:15. > :38:19.forward. This series of legal challenges has left us wondering
:38:19. > :38:24.who is really in charge, who is running the country, politicians or
:38:24. > :38:28.lawyers? During the week I sat down with Phil Shiner, the senior
:38:28. > :38:33.partner at the Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers. They are
:38:33. > :38:36.taking on Gloucestershire County Council. I asked him what he would
:38:36. > :38:41.say to council leaders like Mark Hawthorne? Local authorities, like
:38:41. > :38:46.all of us, have to obey the law. They have got clear legal duties,
:38:46. > :38:54.whether it is under the libraries and museums act, or the Equality
:38:54. > :38:59.Act. They have got a duty to consult with the public property --
:38:59. > :39:02.public properly, before they cut services like libraries. Another
:39:02. > :39:06.case came up in the summer in Stoke on Trent, where the council
:39:06. > :39:10.identified the teaching of children with hearing difficulties in
:39:10. > :39:14.schools as an area where budgets needed to be cut, but they backed
:39:14. > :39:21.off even under the threat of a legal challenge, because they
:39:21. > :39:25.thought it was too big of a brisker to contemplate. Is this a case of a
:39:25. > :39:29.democratically elected council being dictated to by the lawyers?
:39:29. > :39:34.The lawyers wouldn't see it like that. They would see it that a
:39:34. > :39:39.group of parents, or members of the community, identified that there is
:39:39. > :39:42.going to be a breach of the law and if that means that that particular
:39:42. > :39:47.local authority backed off what would otherwise have been an
:39:47. > :39:53.unlawful decision, that is what the law is there for. We know that
:39:53. > :39:59.earlier this year a judicial review went against the way the Government
:39:59. > :40:05.had decided to scrap the building of new schools in the future but
:40:05. > :40:11.surely this is another example of a democratically elected government
:40:11. > :40:15.introducing a policy and then the lawyers parking their tanks on the
:40:15. > :40:19.Government's lawn. I we get this political posturing. The
:40:19. > :40:23.politicians seem to want it both ways, they want to mouth off about
:40:23. > :40:29.what a great democracy we live in and a fundamental commitment to the
:40:29. > :40:34.rule of law, and do not lose sight of the fact that if we as a society
:40:34. > :40:38.a lose that commitment, we are in big trouble. We know that your firm
:40:38. > :40:41.is involved in the case of tuition fees in Scotland, which have caused
:40:41. > :40:47.give it a significantly worse deal to students from England, compared
:40:47. > :40:53.with anywhere else in the EU. I gather that that is a pre- cursor t
:40:53. > :40:57.something on an even bigger scale? Yes, it is. We have a big case at
:40:57. > :41:02.the High Court in London, where we are acting for two students who are
:41:02. > :41:10.challenging the decision just before Christmas of 2010, to raise
:41:11. > :41:19.the cap to �9,000. If we win, the Government will be told that the
:41:19. > :41:21.decision to raise the cap to �9,000 breaches fundamental human rights
:41:21. > :41:27.provisions and heard the poorer members of up our society who
:41:27. > :41:32.clearly cannot be running up debts of �60,000 in order to go through
:41:32. > :41:35.the high education system. Is it not a bit rich to throw the statute
:41:35. > :41:39.book at democratically elected councils and the Government who
:41:39. > :41:43.were trying to make the best of an extraordinary it bad job
:41:43. > :41:49.economically. What we do is sometimes, to shore up arguments
:41:49. > :41:53.that might arise under a human right so acts, or the newer
:41:53. > :42:00.legislation, we go back to the common law, the foundations of the
:42:00. > :42:05.rule of law. We are not reading statute books, we are unashamedly
:42:05. > :42:11.mining, sometimes, the rich seam that that is the common law of the
:42:11. > :42:16.UK. Thank you. There we are, our three posturing
:42:16. > :42:20.politicians are still with us, ready to start mouthing off again.
:42:20. > :42:30.James, you have got a real problem in your Government if there is a
:42:30. > :42:32.
:42:32. > :42:36.successful text -- successful test case against the �9,000 cap. Phil
:42:36. > :42:44.Shiner is obviously politically motivated in what he is doing.
:42:44. > :42:49.denies that. Maybe what he should do is seek elected office and argue
:42:49. > :42:52.in the Public Square for the pros and cons of a particular course of
:42:52. > :42:57.action that the Government is taking. That is a fundamental
:42:57. > :43:01.aspect of our democracy. That is the most important factor in this.
:43:01. > :43:05.He might end up earning less money, but he would be held accountable by
:43:05. > :43:10.the people and that is why, in our democracy, that is the most
:43:10. > :43:13.important thing. In Stoke-on-Trent, those people concerned about
:43:13. > :43:18.services for deaf children in schools, it turned out that the
:43:18. > :43:21.court, rather than the ballot box, was more help to them. I have got a
:43:21. > :43:27.very simple view, politicians make the law, they should not break the
:43:27. > :43:32.law. If they are held to account by citizens taking them to the court,
:43:32. > :43:37.and they are found to have acted unlawfully, then they should change
:43:37. > :43:42.their approach. To give one example, here in Birmingham, earlier on this
:43:43. > :43:47.year, Birmingham City Council sought to take away care from 4,100
:43:47. > :43:51.people in substantial lead. Heartbreaking cases. I know many of
:43:51. > :43:56.the people myself. I was involved in driving a High Court action
:43:56. > :44:03.against that, which stop that happening. Wide? Because they
:44:03. > :44:07.failed to act in their -- they failed to fulfil their
:44:07. > :44:10.responsibilities under the Disabilities Act. You know the
:44:10. > :44:15.strains on the government to balance the books, do you have some
:44:16. > :44:21.sympathy? I have sympathy for anyone who is suffering from cuts,
:44:21. > :44:24.always have. There is a balance, but I would say both for central
:44:24. > :44:28.government and for local councils, you must always take the law into
:44:28. > :44:32.consideration and do what you have to do, because otherwise,
:44:32. > :44:35.politicians become above the law and we should be making and
:44:35. > :44:38.upholding the law, not just breaking the law. Councils who are
:44:38. > :44:44.taken to court are taken to court because they have not done the
:44:44. > :44:47.right thing. The simple point for all of you in a nutshell is that in
:44:47. > :44:52.an increasingly litigious environment, Parliament, councils,
:44:52. > :44:58.have to be very much more careful than it has been in drafting
:44:58. > :45:02.legislation. I think that is true. Clearly processes have to be gone
:45:02. > :45:05.through but we need to keep a balance that we are talking about a
:45:05. > :45:09.democratic society, where politicians are elected, to make
:45:09. > :45:13.decisions which they are then held accountable for at elections. That
:45:13. > :45:19.is a fundamental part of our democratic process. I think it is
:45:19. > :45:22.right that the equalities Act protects the disabled, women, those
:45:22. > :45:24.who suffer discrimination on the grounds of their race a or
:45:24. > :45:29.ethnicity, I think we should be proud of that and not complain
:45:29. > :45:33.about it. This is the point where I have to say that I am in charge