|
Mr. McNulty: That would be the case if the transformation of the membership meant that the regional planning body fell outside the criteria that we have laid down, indicatively for now, in the planning Green Paper, which will be developed more substantively by circular or regulation. Those criteria will be clearly laid down. One could envisage cases in which an additional or replacement member substantially transformed the body so that it was no longer representative of the region or the other criteria outlined. The change in membership, and whether it is transformative, will be dealt with in the context of the criteria as laid down. Clearly if the change is simple, involving someone from the same representative body moving to the RPB, that will make no difference to the body's representativeness and ability to carry out its work. It would be foolish if every such straightforward change of membership had to be recognised by the Secretary of State.
Given that I gave the Committee a route map last week of the parts of each clause that will give rise to regulation or other secondary activity, I shall try in each stand part debate to refer back to that to let Members know where there will be subsequent
Column Number: 87
regulation. With that generosity of spirit in mind, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
RPB: general functions
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No.6, in
clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out 'may be expected to'.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has asked me to move an amendment, which is a very risky manoeuvre and one that he may come to regret. I hope not; I think that I understand what is required of me, but I shall hear from him afterwards if I do not.
The amendment seeks to remove the words ''may be expected to'' from clause 3(2), so that it would read ''The RPB must keep under review the matters which affect'' rather than
''the matters which may be expected to affect'',
as it does at present. I think that the words ''may be expected to'' are either unnecessary or make the provision far too wide. The Committee can take its pick of which argument it prefers.
So far as I can see, something either affects a matter that concerns the RPB or it does not. To say that it may or may not affect it is unnecessary. I accept that the RPB must keep under review ''matters which . . . affect'' such concerns. That makes sense to me, and, I hope, to the entire Committee. It should not be difficult to know what matters do or do not have an effect. On the one hand, then, the argument is that the words ''may be expected to'' are quite unnecessary, and I should be interested to know why the Minister thinks that they add something.
On the other hand, an argument could be made that those words give planning bodies the right simply to announce, ''We think this might affect us, so we shall poke our nose into it''. I should be opposed to that. Who is to say whether such a matter will or will not have an effect? If someone on a planning body makes the subjective assessment that in their view, at some stage in the future, it may affect that body, then they will be able to become involved, interfere and take their remit as wide as they choose.
The Bill—this returns us to previous arguments—is about land use and town and country planning, not social engineering. I see ''may be expected to'' as another opportunity for somebody to get up to mischief, should he or she so wish, and to say that they will take their remit as wide as they like to interfere in whatever they like, dragging into that remit all sorts of matters that do not have any direct bearing on land use planning.
There are therefore two possible reasons for the amendment: either the words that it would delete are unnecessary, or they go too far. I invite the Committee to take its pick, but whichever reason appeals to them, I trust that they will vote for the amendment.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne
Column Number: 88
(Mr. Wilshire) says. Whatever disagreement there may be about the contents of any Bill, let alone this one, I am sure that we are united in our duty to put on the statute book a measure that is unambiguous, exact and, so far as we can achieve it, precise. I feel that the phrase ''may be expected to'' contradicts that aim. Like my hon. Friend, I wonder whether it is necessary. I shall listen to the Minister's reply with interest, but if he does think it necessary, I wonder whether it is too wide-sweeping.
That imprecise phrase has been echoed in the two clauses that we have previously examined. We discussed the phrase ''however expressed'' during our consideration of clause 1(2). Incidentally, the Minister will remember that I asked him last Thursday whether that has been included in any previous legislation.
Clause 1(4) includes the phrase ''so much of''. When we examined clause 2(5), we discussed whether it should include ''may'' or ''must''. I felt that it should be ''must'' because the Bill must be precise. No doubt we shall discuss other examples of such language. In all sincerity, I ask the Minister whether it is necessary to include the phrase ''may be expected to''.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: This is, I am afraid, another example of sloppy drafting. Clause 3(2) states:
''The RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect''.
The question is, ''may be expected'' by whom? Is it the RPB? Is it the man on the Clapham omnibus? Is it a planning QC? Who might it be expected to be and what level of knowledge will that person have? My hon. Friends are on to a good point. We need the Minister to clarify what clause 3(2) means.
Mr. McNulty: To the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), may I say that the exposition about legal precedent or otherwise is on its way for clause 1? I suspect that we are chasing shadows because, as the hon. Gentleman will find out shortly, I can give him legal precedent for clause 3 without having to write to him. Amendment No. 6 would require the regional planning body to keep under review matters that affect development in its region, or any part of its region, and the planning of that development. The Bill confines that duty to matters that may be expected subsequently to affect the development of an RPB's planning.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained from amendment No. 6. If an RPB thinks that a matter affects the development of its region, it must keep it under review. That is not a licence to interfere with other bodies, but it is putting that duty on a statutory footing for the RPB. By using the term ''may be expected'', the RPB must also look ahead to see whether it can predict that future matters will affect development and must therefore keep them under review. Would that the world were simplistic and straightforward enough clearly to summarise in black and white every single possible matter that might affect the future of an RPB and its work, but life is not like that. In practice, an RPB will need to establish arrangements for keeping under review a range of matters, including economic development,
Column Number: 89
regeneration, housing and transport, to ensure that it has robust and comprehensive information.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Spelthorne is partly right and, following on from last Thursday, will be consistent in his detestation of anything that nudges things beyond the parameters of a simply focused land use function in the planning system, which is exactly what clause 3 is about. Clause 3 goes to the heart of spatial strategy, which is distinct in being more comprehensive than a structure plan or a unitary development. However good a job each RPB is doing, some circumstances affecting a region and its development will become clear only with hindsight. Similarly, circumstances that appear likely to affect a region's development may, in hindsight, not have done so.
The duty in clause 3(2) is modelled on—in essence, lifted from—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which has stood the test of time. Amendment No. 6 would leave the RPB open to the risk of failing to discharge a statutory duty simply because what it expected to affect a region's development or the planning of that development did not do so.
Clause 3 provides the RPB with the tools, in the form of clear and sensible statutory duties, to do its job. The amendment would put every RPB at risk of failing to carry out its review functions properly. It is not acceptable, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
I said at the beginning that the amendment is chasing shadows. There is nothing sinister, untoward or devious about the clause, which is rooted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I would not go so far as to say that the Bill is an attempt at social engineering, but if, like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, one is entirely against including anything other than land use, it would be entirely legitimate to oppose the clause root and branch—legitimate, but entirely wrong.
The clause is part and parcel of the development of spatial strategies rather than just narrowly defined land use and development control plans. Such strategies are at the heart of the Bill and at the heart of the comprehensive and integrated planning system that the country needs for the future.
9.15 am
Mr. Wilshire: Over the weekend, being conscious that there are courses for speed reading, I tried to find one for speed listening, because I wanted to do justice to the Minister's comments. I am beginning to understand that the Government Whips Office decides how many sittings are necessary on the basis of which Minister is taking the lead and how quickly he or she will get through the briefs that are prepared by civil servants. However, I caught the drift of what the Minister said.
The Minister said that I was absolutely right—I knew that, because I am always absolutely right. However, when a Labour Minister admits it, begin to doubt my judgment, and I have had to think carefully
Column Number: 90
about that comment. He asked me to be consistent. I am always consistent, as he will discover, except when it suits my purpose not to be. I believe that he will not be disappointed on this occasion.
The Minister said that there is a legal precedent and cited the 1990 Act. I am not a lawyer and am not, therefore, as impressed by precedent as lawyers are. I always regard the argument that we have done something before as similar to the argument about beating one's wife—that if it has been done before, it is legitimate to do it again. I do not agree with that one, either. The provision dealt with in the amendment is either necessary, or it is not. What might have been necessary in 1990 is of little interest to us now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold was absolutely right to ask, ''expected by whom?'' If it is the experts, I am worried—I should far prefer it to be the person on the Clapham omnibus.
|
