|
Mr. Wilshire: As the Minister rightly said, it was not my intention to send out the wrong message, but to persuade him to say what he has said. If I have understood him correctly, he said that, even without the amendment, it is not the case that each part of the process has to contribute, whatever the circumstances. He said that he could envisage occasional circumstances in which there would not be a contribution, and that was the point on which I was trying to draw him. His remarks will be recorded in Hansard. Now that we know the Government's intentions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Local development orders
Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in
clause 39, page 21, line 12, leave out 'Complusory' and insert 'Compulsory'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 244, in
clause 44, page 32, line 5, leave out 'satisifed' and insert 'satisfied'.
Matthew Green: The amendments would correct spelling mistakes.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his eagle-eyed spotting of two typographical mistakes. I read the Bill and did not spot them, but he did—good luck to him. As his eye is
Column Number: 9
more eagle than mine, I want an assurance from him that there are no more typographical errors in the Bill. [Laughter.]
3 pm
Mr. McNulty: I would love to say that there is a technical term ''complusory'' that is different from compulsory, but I can only congratulate the hon. Gentleman on identifying the mistake. However, I ask him to withdraw the amendment purely because of the technical difficulties with printing, as it would cost an enormous amount to reprint the Bill between now and Tuesday next. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how much, because I do not have the details to hand. On the premise that I assure him—
The Chairman: Order. I advise the Minister that if he does not accept the amendment, Government amendments will have to be moved at some stage. Although the errors are clearly typographical, they will continue to remain in the Bill, so the changes will have to be rendered through amendment at some stage.
Mr. McNulty: That is what I was coming to. Like the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I do not have confidence that there are only two errors or that, given his busy recent schedule, the hon. Member for Ludlow has picked up all of them. I undertake that my counsel will go through the Bill to find all the typos, so that we can clean them up in one fell swoop.
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister said that in the event of the amendments being passed, the Bill would have to be reprinted straight away, and he used that as a reason for rejecting them. My understanding is that a Bill is reprinted at the end of the Committee stage, after all the changes have been made. Unless the Minister is saying that he will not accept any changes on principle, it will have to be reprinted at some stage.
The Chairman: I shall take that point of order, but I will let the Minister intervene, too.
Mr. McNulty: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I meant to get across the point that there may be other typos. I am grateful that the two in question have been picked up, but we should get officials on the case to check the whole Bill before it is reprinted, so that those two are not sorted with a bunch of others still in the Bill.
The Chairman: The position is that after amendments have been agreed in Committee, including Government amendments to take care of any such printing errors, the Bill is then reprinted. If the two amendments are accepted today, it will ultimately be reprinted, but not straight away.
Mr. Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. If the Government are suggesting that the amendments should be withdrawn and that the Government will return with their own amendments, am I right in thinking that we can table amendments to any clause, even if it has been debated? If we do not deal with the errors now and move on to subsequent clauses, does the Government have the power to table an amendment to a provision that we have already disposed of?
Column Number: 10
The Chairman: The Government may not do that until Report. The hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill will stand with the errors until Report, when it would be possible for someone to move amendments again, if the Government did not do that.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I speak to the amendments?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: We have properly established parliamentary procedure in which we scrutinise Bills line by line in Standing Committees. Here are two of the simplest errors that one could possibly wish to encounter, and the Government are resisting changes. The Committee would look completely incompetent if we reported the Bill to the House with two glaring spelling mistakes uncorrected. The Government are asking us to do an extraordinary thing. It is as plain as a pikestaff that the Minister is absolutely determined to send the Bill out of Committee with no amendments. We should shout from the rooftops if the Government do not accept these two amendments—the Green amendments—which are excellent. The errors were well spotted, and the hon. Member for Ludlow deserves the Committee's congratulations.
Matthew Green: I had no idea that two spelling mistakes would cause so much debate. Frankly, I do not mind whether the amendments are accepted now or on Report.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): Might the hon. Gentleman tell the Government which superior form of spell check he uses?
Matthew Green: I did not put the Bill through a spell check. If the hon. Gentleman were to read my speaking notes, he would find many more spelling mistakes in them.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will push his amendment to a vote. It would be extraordinary if the Committee allowed the Bill to go unamended when it contains spelling mistakes. The Government must respond.
Matthew Green: I am at a loss to know what to do. I am assured by the Minister that he will bring the matter back on Report, perhaps finding even more spelling mistakes before then. I understand his reasons for wanting to do that, but I remain dumbstruck that two spelling mistakes should have generated quite so much interest. I had thought that I would just stand up and say that they were there, and that by the time I had sat down, the amendments would have been accepted. Clearly, that was not the case.
None the less, I shall have to disappoint the hon. Member for Cotswold. I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that he will go through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb to find any further spelling mistakes, and will table amendments on Report. I am not here to win victories about spelling mistakes; I came into politics to be involved in bigger issues than that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No.
Column Number: 11
The Chairman: As an hon. Member has objected to leave being withdrawn, I must put the Question on the amendment. For the guidance of the Committee, the Question will be on amendment No. 240, in clause 39, page 21, line 12, as listed on the Amendment Paper.
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I really am not clear what we are to vote on.
The Chairman: I want everyone to be clear, which is why I have referred to the amendment. The procedure is unusual, but it is in order. Once the amendment has been moved, it is the property of the Committee. When the Question was put that leave should be given to withdraw it, the Committee disagreed. I shall now put the Question on the amendment to the Committee.
Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry but I am relatively new to this place. Are we to vote on whether my amendment should be withdrawn, or on the amendment itself?
The Chairman: I gave my guidance so that hon. Members would know exactly what they will vote on. I am putting the Question on the amendment, and all hon. Members should now know what they are voting on. If one voice dissents, an amendment cannot be withdrawn. The vote to come will be on the amendment. Is everyone clear on that?
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.
Division No. 13]
AYES
Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Edwards, Mr. Huw
Follett, Barbara
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Henderson, Mr. Ivan
Levitt, Mr. Tom
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Norris, Dan
Wright, David
Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman: Let me make it absolutely clear that when an amendment is put at the end of a debate, if the mover seeks to withdraw it, there is a question before Members. The Chairman always puts that question to withdraw, and I have put that every time. If an hon. Member objects, I have no option but to put that amendment to the Committee.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 217, in
clause 39, page 21, line 29, at end insert
'but only after giving one year's notice'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 368, in
clause 39, page 22, line 30, leave out subsection (8).
Amendment No. 218, in
clause 39, page 22, line 31, at end insert
'but only after giving one year's notice'.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: We now move on to part 4 of the Bill, which is on development control. The first clause in that part is on local development orders. It might help the Committee if I quote the first sentence
Column Number: 12
of the explanatory notes on clause 39 to put it into context:
''By providing for local permitted development rights, clause 39 introduces a new procedure to allow local planning authorities to expand on the permitted development rights set nationally by way of development orders.''
Those permitted development rights allow the developer or applicant to carry out a particular development without having to obtain planning permission. They were originally set out in the general permitted development order.
Under this new procedure, the general permitted development order can be varied by the individual local planning authority. That is quite a radical procedure, laid out carefully in the Bill. Amendment No. 217 relates to new section 61A(6), which says:
''A local planning authority may revoke a local development order at any time.''
To put that into context, developers, applicants and others will know from their local authority what permitted developments are allowed, without having to obtain planning permission. A statement of development principles will be drawn up by the local authority at some stage, and everyone will be entitled to obtain a copy.
If a local development order can be revoked at any time, a developer might be on the point of carrying out a material development but suddenly find that the local authority has withdrawn the permitted development right on a whim. It seems right to us that that should be allowed only after giving one year's notice. I do not know whether one year is the correct period, but the local authority should not be able to withdraw that right immediately, on a whim. It should have to give some notice.
The only exception to that should be if a local authority is trying to prevent an immediate abuse or nuisance. If that is the Minister's defence against our amendment, he should be able to frame a specific amendment to deal with those exceptional circumstances.
Amendment No. 368 would leave out subsection (8), which says that schedule 4A makes provision in connection with local development orders. Again, the aim seems sensible. There has to be some certainty in the system, and we need to find out from the Minister exactly what subsection (8) means.
3.15 pm
Amendment No. 218 is intended to do the opposite. It would prevent an order from coming into effect until one year had passed. The orders may involve a negative power, preventing some form of development, or a positive power, allowing a particular class of development.
It may help the Committee if I give examples of what is covered under the general permitted development order. One widely used power is the general extension of houses by up to 10 per cent. of floor area. The clause might vary that power. Another example is where an agricultural building is a certain distance away from the highway. It does not have to have planning permission, but its design still has to be
Column Number: 13
approved by the local planning authority. Another power under the general permitted development order is for certain activities—for example, car boot sales—that can take place in less than 14 days. If they take place more than 14 days, they need planning permission.
All those events and developments might be varied by the clause. In the same way that we seek to fetter the local authority's ability to withdraw an order without giving notice, so we seek to fetter the Secretary of State's powers. He should have to give notice of one year, as in amendment No. 218, before revoking or modifying any powers. That seems only reasonable.
This is a relatively complicated matter, and other aspects will be covered by further amendments, but it will be useful to hear what the Minister has to say.
| 
