Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Keith Hill: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the criteria set out in clause 6(4), which stipulate the considerations to which the Secretary of State must have regard when deciding whether to arrange for an examination to be held:

''(a) the extent of the revisions proposed by the draft . . . (b) the extent''

and nature of

''consultation on the draft before it was published''

and

''(c) the level of interest shown in the draft''.

The last paragraph refers to

''such other matters as he thinks appropriate''.

The hon. Gentleman alleges that the Secretary of State can think that any matter is important and therefore has carte blanche to make whichever decision he wishes. However, the Secretary of State must always take account of paragraphs (a) to (c)—the first three criteria—so it is not true to say that clause 6(4)(d) gives him carte blanche. The Secretary of State must act reasonably, as I am sure any Labour Secretary of State would.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I have no doubt that he would act reasonably, and he is beginning to reassure me. It might be helpful if he made it clear whether if there were a significant ''level of interest'' in the draft, as in clause 6(4)(c), and there had not been as much consultation as would be carried out in other regions, anything else would be insignificant and the Secretary of State would feel, on the ground of reasonableness, that he would have to have a public examination.

Keith Hill: I think that the hon. Gentleman is scraping the barrel. Before I respond to that, let me deal with the suggestion that there is a disparity in treatment regarding development plan documents, which will always be subject to an examination in public. The representations made on a draft RSS revision will always be considered by the Secretary of State. The question is, does he need an examination in front of a panel to help him?

While we are dealing with issues raised by hon. Gentlemen, another thought has sprung into my head. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about factors that the Secretary of State cannot foresee and about the Secretary of State not having the power to make regulations. The answer to that, it appears, is that he needs to make a reasonable decision at the time.

6.30 pm

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would mean that regulations would have to be made for a particular case, and might not then be relevant to all cases. Such regulations may take something—time—and may come too late to apply to a specific decision. Frankly, I could not have put it better myself. Let me go on with my view.

These criteria are entirely sensible and appropriate for making such a decision. In addition, draft PPS11 states that there is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held. The Secretary of State may decide that an examination is unnecessary

Column Number: 394

only in the exceptional circumstances of a minor revision, and subject to the criteria that I cited earlier. It should not surprise the hon. Gentleman that, to date, the Secretary of State has never decided that a public examination is not warranted.

Similarly, amendment No. 139 would represent an unwarranted reduction in the Secretary of State's discretion. It would prevent him from taking other matters into account, beyond those in the Bill at clause 6(4), as he sees appropriate, when deciding whether to hold an examination in public. That seems unhelpful: we do not have particular matters in mind but the views of regional stakeholders, for example, might be relevant.

Government amendment No. 75 is a small but important amendment reflecting the importance that we attach to consultation within the regional planning process. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consider the nature, as well as the extent, of the consultation undertaken by the regional planning body. That focus on the quality as well as the quantity of consultation is reflected in the draft regulations to part 1 of the Bill and PPS11. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been trying hard and the hour is late. He is incredibly reasonable and I am sure that under his stewardship, there would be always be an examination in public, but I can foresee circumstances in which an individual, a group of individuals or perhaps even an entire local planning authority was unhappy with the regional spatial plan, particularly—reverting to the issue that we debated before the tea break—on the allocation of numbers of houses. I can foresee circumstances in which a different Secretary of State would take a fairly cavalier attitude, decide not to hold an independent examination and get away with it under the Bill.

I do not want to labour the point but I shall quote clause 19(1) on the local plan procedure:

''The local planning authority must submit every development plan document''—

some of those will be fairly small—

''to the Secretary of State for independent examination.''

There must be an independent examination; there is no discretion in that case. Some of those are really petty matters, whereas the regional spatial strategy is a hugely important document, affecting people's lives greatly. There is a disparity in the Bill. I would not be surprised if others in another place wanted to come back to this. I cannot understand why, if the Minister is so certain that there will be consultation and an independent examination, he will not accept a change of wording in the Bill to that extent.

Matthew Green: One frustration with the debate arose when the Minister read from draft PPS11. He said:

''There is a strong presumption that an examination-in-public will be held and it is only in exceptional circumstances of a minor revision and subject to the criteria set out in clause 6(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Secretary of State may decide an examination is unnecessary.''

Column Number: 395

If the Minister had responded to the debate immediately and reassured us with that significant and strong statement, which would have been on the record, many of the interventions would have been unnecessary. It is frustrating, although only a minor gripe, that in PPS11, the statement is not under the heading of ''The Examination-in-Public'', which is what we are talking about, but towards the end of the section headed ''Submission of the Draft Revision to the Secretary of State''. If I had known that, I could have avoided tabling the amendments.

With that statement, more than anything else that he said, the Minister has reassured me that the system will work in that there will be examinations in public in all but the most exceptional circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 75, in

clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out

'to which there was any'

and insert 'and nature of the'.—[Keith Hill.]

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

RSS: examination in public

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in

clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (1).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 141, in

clause 7, page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

'(3) The person appointed by the Secretary of State shall decide who will appear in person at the examination in public.'.

Matthew Green: Although amendment No. 140 is the first in this group, it follows from the amendments in the previous group. As I accepted the Minister's assurance then, to save time I accept them in this case. I am not particularly interested in amendment No. 140 now, but I am interested in the Minister's response to amendment No. 141, because it would ensure that there was an opportunity for objectors to a draft revision of the RSS to be heard. The RSS may be more site specific than the existing regional planning guidance.

I realise that the Minister said earlier that the RSS was not intended to be particularly site specific but it could be more so than the existing regional planning guidance, and it could have an effect on individual

Column Number: 396

property owners. It is essential that they should have the right to state their objections in a proposal to the RSS. If that is not allowed, there is the possibility of legal challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998, on the grounds that the individual has not had the opportunity of a fair hearing of their objections.

The amendment would provide a caveat, that the person appointed by the Secretary of State shall decide who will appear in person at the examination in public. That is to allow the inspector to decide that not every person with objections could be heard in public if they are essentially the same objections. I am trying to be reasonable, and not to allow an objector's charter, to use that horrible phrase again. In respect of that clarification, because the RSS could be more site specific than the existing regional planning guidance, there may be need for compliance with the Human Rights Act to allow individuals to be heard. The best person to decide that is the inspector, who is appointed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely follow the hon. Gentleman. Amendment No. 140 was more or less dealt with in the previous discussion, but amendment No. 141 deserves a little more discussion, particularly in view of the inconsistency of the approach taken by the Minister on the new clause in my name, my proposals for an independent inquiry into local plan documents and the proposals for an independent inquiry relating to the RSS.

Clause 7(3) states:

''No person has a right to be heard at an examination in public.''

Had I spotted that earlier, I would certainly have tabled an amendment to delete it or considerably amend it, because it is totally contrary to everything that the Minister has said in Committee. I hope that he will say that if an amendment to that subsection were tabled on Report, he would be minded to accept it. That said, amendment No. 141, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow spoke , is entirely reasonable. In local plans and the RSS, the person who has the say as to who can appear before the inquiry must be the independent inspector.

Unless we have a statement from the Minister, there will almost certainly be a challenge, again under article 6 in respect of the Human Rights Act, which I have quoted to the Committee previously. That makes it clear that every person has a right to appear at an independent inquiry or tribunal. Clause 7(3) must be completely contrary to it. I wonder how the Minister or his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, will be able to sign the certificate saying that the Bill is human rights compliant, because every Bill that goes through this place must have such a certificate. I think that there will be great difficulty with that while clause 7(3) remains in place, but I await with interest what the Minister has to say.

 

---

Prepared 23 October 2003