Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Turner: The Minister says that he must take account of representations that the inspector has not taken into account. Does he have to or is he entitled to reconsider representations that the inspector has taken into account? May he only consider the inspector's report on those representations?

Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that?

Mr. Turner: The Minister said that the Secretary of State was entitled to take account of representations that the inspector had not taken into account. I asked whether the Secretary of State is entitled to take account of representations that the inspector has taken into account or is he merely entitled to take account of the inspector's report on those representations?

Keith Hill: The answer to the first part of the choice that the hon. Gentleman posed is yes. That is for the record. If there is likely to be a long delay between the submission of the report and the publication of proposed changes, the report may be published at the same time, as people will want to know what changes are made in the light of it.

Clause 8(3) requires the Secretary of State to publish his proposed changes and reasons. Under the proposed regulations, the Secretary of State and the RPB are required to publish not only an explanation of the changes made, but decisions not to make changes recommended in the report. The Secretary of State will also send these changes and reasons to statutory consultees and others who made representations on the RPB's draft revision. The

Column Number: 404

regulations also provide for comments to be made on the Secretary of State's proposed changes.

Following the consultation on the proposed changes, the Secretary of State will issue final revision to the RSS. [Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr. Hurst, it is that time in the Committee's proceedings when I must collect myself. The Bill, regulations and the procedural policy and guidance set in draft PPS11 on regional planning provide robust and transparent arrangements for the process. It should already be clear why amendment No. 142 is not necessary. I wish in many respects that I could sit down now, but I am aware that I also need to address amendment No. 143.

Amendment No. 143 is about having a further examination in public to look at representations on the Secretary of State's proposed changes. I do not agree with that approach for two reasons. First, most of the changes that the Secretary of State will propose will flow from the appointed person's report. The presumption is that the Secretary of State will amend the draft RSS revision in accordance with that report, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. Other, more minor changes may arise from representations that are not considered in the report. If the changes arise from the report, the issues will already have been considered at the examination. Therefore, representations on proposed changes will normally be in relation to matters already considered at the examination and will thus not need a further examination; or, if the representations arise in relation to the more minor changes, they are likely to be more minor, not warranting an examination.

Secondly, a further examination into the same proposed changes may not be the most sensible way to proceed in the unlikely event that a major new issue arises after the Secretary of State's proposed changes have been published. An example might be the emergence of a radically different regional economic strategy produced by the regional development agency. If that happens, the Secretary of State will need to consider whether a further round of consultation can accommodate it, or whether the change is so fundamental that the regional planning body will need to produce a new draft revision. If the latter, clause 8(7) provides for the Secretary of State to withdraw the draft revision. The regional planning body would be able to look at the proposals in the light of the new information and prepare a new draft revision, which can then go through the examination process afresh.

I have already dealt with the reasons for changes, which the first part of amendment No. 144 raises. The second part would require the Secretary of State, where there was no elected regional assembly, to give reasons for withdrawing a draft RSS. The approach that we have adopted throughout parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is that for the more significant, substantive powers of the Secretary of State, it is right to place in the Bill a duty to give reasons. For example, when the Secretary of State proposes any changes to a draft revision of the RSS, he must give his reasons why, under clause 8(3). That is important because the final published version will form part of the development plan. Given the significant substantive nature of those powers, it is

Column Number: 405

appropriate for the giving of reasons to appear in the Bill. In addition, if anyone is aggrieved by the policies in an RSS revision or the reasons given for it, they can challenge the validity of the revision under clause 78.

7.15 pm

However, if the Secretary of State decides to withdraw a draft revision, it is essentially procedural, and it is unnecessary to publish the reasons in the Bill. That is similar to the current provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, whereby the Secretary of State has various powers of direction for which there is no statutory requirement to give reasons. For example, he has no statutory requirement to give reasons when he calls in proposals in a local plan for his approval under section 44, although it is our policy that the Secretary of State would provide reasons, unless they were obvious.

Any exercise of those powers could be challenged by way of judicial review, and any arbitrary exercise of power would risk a successful challenge. For those reasons, any Minister would sensibly explain why he was exercising the power. As I have explained, the Government seek to provide reasons for their decisions, as a matter of good practice. The amendment understandably seeks safeguards around the exercise of the power to withdraw. However, there are sufficient safeguards within our system of administrative law and practice, which make it unnecessary.

If it were not obvious why the draft revision was being withdrawn, consideration would be given to publishing the reasons why. Nevertheless, I undertake to the Committee to reconsider whether we need to clarify that point in the final version of PPS11 and possibly provide for it in regulations, as we have when the RPB withdraws a draft revision.

I fear that I have burdened the Committee with a lengthy response but these are serious matters. I urge the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: We have had a full and cogent response to amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I am sure that when I consult Hansard I will read a very cogent response to amendment No. 142.

Mr. Francois: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister, in his reply, played a very straight bat, even if he did not always manage to maintain a very straight face?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well.

I am particularly reassured by the Minister's final point. He always saves the best points to the end—they must be written to save up the punch line. I am reassured by the fact that he will consider my point, with particular regard to the Secretary of State's powers, in his revisions to draft PPS11. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 406

Clause 10

Regulations

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in

clause 10, page 6, line 13, at end insert—

'(ba) requirements about inspection by the public of a draft revision or any other document;'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 76 to 78 and 91 to 94.

Keith Hill: It is my pleasure to move the amendment, which concerns the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations governing the application of parts of the new arrangements for regional and local planning under parts 1 and 2.

Amendment No. 76 would make express provision for regulations that set out requirements about inspection by the public of a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy or any other document. Amendment No. 92 is the equivalent for local development documents or any other documents under part 2.

One of our main aims in the reforms is to secure effective and robust opportunities for the public to engage with the new planning system, and the amendments help to achieve that. We have set out in draft the regulations that we intend to make. The provisions will ensure that there is consistency across the country to a reasonable standard based on current good practice. The public and others with an interest can have confidence in the new arrangements.

Amendments Nos. 77 and 93 provide for regulations under clauses 10 and 35 respectively to determine the time at which actions must be performed. The amendment is intended to provide proper flexibility to regional planning bodies and local planning authorities to move forward quickly the preparations of draft revisions to the regional spatial strategy and local development documents while safeguarding people's rights to be involved. The provisions cover the time at which representations on a draft revision of an RSS must be made. The RPB can determine that time, which must be not less than 12 weeks or, where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that a draft revision constitutes a minor amendment to the RSS, not less than six weeks.

Amendments Nos. 78 and 94 would allow RPBs and local planning authorities to make a reasonable charge for providing copies of documents that they are required to publish under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill or by regulation. As is currently the case, it is sensible that RPBs and local planning authorities should be able to recoup at least part of the costs of publishing documents should they choose to do so. Amendments Nos. 91 and 95 are simply intended to ensure consistency between parts 2 and 6 of the Bill. Amendment No. 91 would create a power in clause 35 for regulations to set up procedures for the preparation of local development documents. There is already such a power in part 6.

Amendment No. 95 provides for regulation under clause 71 to establish the detail of the nature and extent of consultation with and participation by the

Column Number: 407

public in actions taken under part 6. That simply brings the arrangements for Wales into line with those for England. I notice a frisson of gratification among Welsh colleagues in Committee—it is my pleasure to have introduced that measure. There is already such a provision in clause 35.

With the exception of the Welsh provision, the amendments are not exciting, but they are nevertheless important and it was important for me to offer a proper explanation to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 77, in clause 10, page 6, line 21, at beginning insert 'the determination of'.

No. 78, in

clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end add—

'( ) the making of reasonable charges for the provision of copies of documents required by or under this Part.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

---

Prepared 23 October 2003