|
Clause 6
RSS: Secretary of State's functions
Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in
clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
'(3) Before adopting proposals for the alteration or replacement of the RSS, the RPB shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as—
(a) they consider ought to be examined; or
(b) the Secretary of State directs.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 136, in
clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
Amendment No. 138, in
clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection 4.
Government amendment No. 75.
Amendment No. 139, in
clause 6, page 4, leave out line 22.
Matthew Green: Normal business will now resume; there is just over an hour to go.
By leaving out subsections (3) and (4) and inserting a new subsection (3), amendment No. 137 is designed to ensure that an examination in public is held on any draft revision of the regional spatial strategy—yes, we are back to RSSs. Section 35B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires county councils
Column Number: 390
to hold a public examination of an alteration to a structure plan. The same requirement should apply to a regional planning body altering its regional spatial strategy.
In deciding whether a public examination is to be held, subsection 4(c) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the
''level of interest shown in the draft''.
I am unsure what that would mean. Would it be the number of letters of objection, the number of people attending local consultative meetings or the amount of column inches in local newspapers? It is unclear what the ''level of interest'' is. It was a major topic of discussion when I worked on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill just under a year ago. Those discussions went on for weeks, but I do not want us to go on for weeks, and we clearly cannot. I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarification.
Amendment No. 136 is broadly along the same lines in that it seeks to ensure a public examination. It is designed to improve public confidence in strategic planning, which is arguably the most critical level of planning for major infrastructure developments. It would also ensure that the draft was subject to effective scrutiny. That is done by removing the ''may'' and inserting ''must'', so that the examination would have to be held in public. Again, if the Minister is minded to refuse the amendments, as Ministers often are, an explanation of the likely reasons why an examination would be held in public or, more importantly, why the Secretary of State might not want to hold one in public, would be very useful.
6.15 pm
Amendment No. 138 would leave out subsection (4). That would take away the Secretary of State's power to decide whether an examination in public would be held in respect of the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. Essentially, that is in line with previous amendments. If there must be an examination in public, this is the corollary amendment, which removes the Secretary of State's powers to decide which examination that is.
Amendment No. 139 would delete line 22, which is a separate way of trying to deal with the matter. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 138, amendment No. 139 will be superfluous, but I suspect that he probably will not, so I am giving him another chance. Amendment No. 139 would delete the caveat whereby the Secretary of State, when deciding whether an examination in public is to be held, must have regard to
''such other matters as he thinks appropriate.''
That is a fairly overarching power for the Secretary of State. He can clearly think that virtually any matter is appropriate or not, so that gives him carte blanche to decide whether there should be an examination in public. Essentially, he could remove paragraphs (a) to (c) because he thought that many factors were more important than his regard for those paragraphs. Effectively, paragraph (d) is a catch-all to allow the Secretary of State to make whichever decision he wishes, regardless of the position in paragraphs (a)
Column Number: 391
to (c). If the Minister is not minded to accept amendment No. 139, he might at least explain what some of those matters are that the Secretary of State might think appropriate—just for clarification.
Amendment No. 75 is a clarificatory Government amendment, which we are happy to support.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have much sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, so the love-in between the Opposition parties referred to by the Minister still goes on. I am sure that it will not continue for the rest of the evening, but it does for the time being.
Reading clause 6, I feel rather aggrieved. The Minister went at me pretty hard over independent examination and who might appear during the independent examination of local plans. Whereas I sought to put in the Bill a minor safeguard to prevent local plan inspectors from becoming absolutely swamped, under this clause there may be no right whatever to appear before an independent inspector, or to make recommendations to the Secretary of State that have to be considered. Clause 6 is pretty all-encompassing, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. I agree with him, and I would like to see subsection (4) abolished.
I particularly dislike subsection (4)(d), which amendment No. 139 would strike out. I dislike the subjective way in which the paragraph is written. It gives anyone who is aggrieved and has to go to a judicial review yet another hurdle to overcome. A far better and more objective direct wording, due to that additional hurdle, would be ''such other matters as are appropriate'' instead of ''he thinks appropriate''. The Secretary of State, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, may think anything he likes, but if one is writing legislation it should be clear and objective. Therefore, I dislike the wording in paragraph (d) and I strongly urge the Committee to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments. I hope that he presses amendment No. 137 to a Division.
Keith Hill: The intention behind amendment No. 137 seems to be to make the regional planning body, rather than the Secretary of State, responsible for organising an examination in public; it would have to organise one unless the Secretary of State directed otherwise. Matters that the RPB thought should be examined or those directed by the Secretary of State would be considered. I note that the amendment is modelled on the provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires a local planning authority to cause an inquiry or other hearing for proposals for the alteration or replacement of plans. However, it is important to remember that the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's policy and it is therefore right that responsibility for an examination in public should rest with him. Placing that responsibility on the RPB instead would not be acceptable.
Amendments Nos. 136, 138 and 139 would restrict the Secretary of State's discretion on whether an examination in public should be held. Amendments
Column Number: 392
Nos. 136 and 138 would remove entirely the Secretary of State's discretion on whether an examination in public were held. The effect would be to require an examination in all cases, even for the most minor revisions to regional spatial strategy, so I cannot agree to the amendments.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Ludlow. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked what is meant by the phrase
''the level of interest shown in the draft''.
The answer is one of common sense. If there have been only very few representations and they have said that there has been little to object to, the Secretary of State may decide that an examination is not necessary. However, that would depend on the particular circumstances with regard to the revision of the regional spatial strategy. I repeat that the proposals are common sense. The ethos and content of the Bill are in favour of transparency and community involvement—I think that I have laboured that point almost to death.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister not see in the local plan process a huge disparity in treatment? As I understand it, every local plan document will have to be subject to an independent examination, yet the Secretary of State may or may not decide to have an independent examination of the regional plan, which, as we discussed earlier, could have huge implications for people's lives. There is a huge disparity between the two plan-making processes.
Keith Hill: I believe that the words of Ministers as recorded in Hansard are taken reasonably seriously. My words have been absolutely clear in their intent. The Bill is clear in its intent, which is in favour of the greatest reasonable involvement of the public in drawing up the regional spatial strategy and all the local development documents. I do not know what more to say, other than this: the hon. Gentleman chooses a literal interpretation of the wording of the Bill and talks about the potential arbitrary, almost despotic, response of a potential Secretary of State. The intent, ethos and character of our exchanges have demonstrated that that would not occur, but if it did there would be a variety of recourses in the public domain to challenge any such procedure.
Matthew Green: I am reassured by the tone of what the Minister says, but I do not want him to sit down before he has discussed the words
''such other matters as he thinks appropriate.''
If he thinks that there may be things he cannot foresee in respect of paragraphs (a) to (c), but that they might come up in future, would it not be more appropriate for there to be provision for regulations allowing him to have regard to other things? As it is, the words
''such other matters as he thinks appropriate''
will receive no scrutiny at any point. I am a bit concerned that the clause is out of line with the tone of the rest of the Bill, in which he leaves room for regulations should new factors come in. In this example, he is not leaving it to regulations—it is entirely down to him.
Column Number: 393
|
