|
Mr. Francois: I appreciate the distinction that the Minister makes, but given that these will be regional public inquiries—if I can use that idiom—has the Minister considered the many people who would feel that they had a strong reason for making a representation? The scale of the inquiry could be very large and the duration very long to allow people to feel that they had had a fair bite of the cherry.
Keith Hill: I dare say that that is potentially the case. Let me set out for the benefit and, I hope, the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman the guidance on the selection of participants. For the general information of the Committee, paragraph 18 states that
''the choice of participants will flow from the matters selected for examination. The main criterion for selecting participants will be the significance of the contribution they can be expected to make to the discussion, having regard to their knowledge and expertise and/or the views they have already expressed. The Panel will ensure it does not invite so many participants as to preclude meaningful debate.''
That seems entirely sensible, and the hon. Member for Cotswold should go along with it. It would be reasonable to assume that the cases identified by the hon. Member for Rayleigh would fall into the category of those who have a significant contribution to make. Therefore, it would be a reasonable expectation that they would be invited to present evidence.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I must curb the Minister on the word ''significant''. What is significant to one person may be more or less significant to someone else. That is why everyone has the right to be heard at a local planning inquiry. The same principle should apply in this case. Some people are more intelligent than others, and some are more articulate. Regardless, if they feel something strongly, they ought to have the right to be heard whether or not their contribution is significant. Clause 7(3) states:
''No person has a right to be heard at an examination in public.''
That is a denial of some people's human rights.
Keith Hill: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In an earlier debate, he was completely against the right of every person making a representation to be heard, but now he is telling us that everybody should be heard. The hon. Gentleman alluded to human rights. Let me just say that an RSS would not contain policies that were site specific. Therefore, it would not affect an individual's property rights. To that extent, there is no conflict with the Human Rights Act. Indeed, the Government
Column Number: 401
would not introduce legislation that was in conflict with that Act.
Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way again. To return to my earlier example, which he was kind enough to admit had some validity, if someone builds a motorway that runs along the bottom of one's property, that undeniably affects one's property rights. The point that I am trying to get across to the Minister is that given some of the inquiries into county structure plans that there have been in the past, an inquiry into the regional spatial strategy of a region with, say, six counties would produce, in effect, six county structure plan inquiries rolled into one. This will be a mammoth exercise, which could affect millions of people, especially given some of the examples of roads or airports that I was trying to cite. Have the Government fully thought through the scale of that undertaking, the resources that would be required to do the thing properly and the time that it would take?
7 pm
Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman waxes most eloquent, but I fear that he has chosen a bad example. Motorways and trunk roads are subject to a separate statutory inquiry under the highways legislation. The issue will simply not arise in connection with the RSS. I rest my case.
Matthew Green: If the Minister's advisers advise him that the RSS will not be any more site-specific than the existing regional planning guidance, who am I to say that they are wrong? They probably have more legal brains than I do, so if they are confident that they will not end up with challenges under the Human Rights Act, it is on the Government's head if they have got it wrong. I have listened to what the Minister said. It really comes down to whether or not the legal advice is correct. If it is, the Government have nothing to worry about. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
RSS: further procedure
Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 143, in
No. 144, in
clause 8, page 5, line 17, at end add—
'(8) The elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State, must publish the reasons for any changes it has made to the revised RSS when published under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (7).'.
No. 300, in
Column Number: 402
Matthew Green: The amendment would ensure that the elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, gives reasons for disagreeing with the recommendations of the inspector who held the examination in public on the draft revision of the RSS. The elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, has the right under the clause to override the recommendations of the inspector who held the examination in public on the draft revision of an RSS, in much the same way in which the Secretary of State has the powers to override a planning inspector's decisions in any inquiry.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to publish any changes that he proposes to make to the draft and his reasons for doing so. However, he is not required to give reasons for his disagreeing with the inspector's recommendations. I assume that the Minister intends that to be included in the Bill. My reading of the clause may be wrong, and it may already be included. If it is not, however, the amendment would tidy up the wording of the clause.
Amendment No. 143 would ensure that any changes to a draft RSS proposed by the elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, to which there are objections, may also be reviewed by an examination in public. The Secretary of State can require the draft revision of an RSS to be subject to examination in public. However, there is no equivalent for an examination in public of any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the draft, whether or not an examination in public has been held on it. If the Secretary of State makes substantive changes following changes to the draft, there is no requirement for there to be public consultation on those changes. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is because he has to be reasonable all the time. Frankly, there is no come back here. Essentially the amendment would ensure that members of the public have as much opportunity to be heard on the proposal of the elected regional assembly or the Secretary of State on the draft revision as they will on the regional planning body's initial draft revision.
Amendment No. 144 is designed to ensure that the elected regional assembly or the Secretary of State give their reasons for decisions about the revision of the regional spatial strategy. Clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any changes that he proposes to make to the draft revision of the RSS. That duty to give reasons should also apply when the Secretary of State publishes the final revision and when he withdraws the draft revision of the RSS. Again, I hope that these amendments clarify the actions of the Secretary of State. I would struggle to imagine that the Minister could disagree with their intention. As usual, I will probably be told that they are entirely unnecessary.
Keith Hill: Allow me, Mr. Hurst, to remind the Committee of the purport of the amendments.
Column Number: 403
Amendment No. 142 would require the Secretary of State to publish any recommendation of the person appointed to hold the examination that he proposed to reject. Amendment No. 143 would require the Secretary of State, when considering representations on proposed changes to draft revisions, to reconstitute the examination in public where necessary. Amendment No. 144 would require an elected regional assembly to give reasons for any changes that it has made to an RSS after the examination in public or if it proposes to withdraw a draft RSS. The duty would fall on the Secretary of State if there were no elected regional assembly.
It may help the Committee if I explain what will happen with the report of the person holding the examination and any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the draft revision of the RSS prepared by the RPB. People and bodies that make representations on the RPB's draft revision are likely to propose a wide variety of changes. The examination will consider the most important issues raised. Clause 8(2) requires the Secretary of State to consider not only the report of the person appointed, but those representations that that person has not considered, so his proposed changes will be influenced by more than just the recommendations in the report.
The report of the examination will certainly be published. Both the Secretary of State and the RPB must publish any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make under the regulations for part 1 of the Bill. That comes in regulation 13.
|
