|
Clause 78
Validity of strategies, plans and documents
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 447, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 448, in
clause 78, page 55, line 7, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
No. 449, in
Mr. Clifton-Brown: We now move to part 8. Clause 78(2) says:
''A relevant document must not be questioned in any legal proceedings except in so far as is provided by the following provisions of this section.''
In other words, the provision would fetter the courts' discretion as to how they interpret the Bill. That is an affront to democracy, and I would be grateful if the Minister—if she is listening—could tell us what legal precedent there is for the provision. It seems to be quite wrong that a Bill can fetter a court's discretion in that way. If there is legal precedent in primary legislation for such a provision, I should be interested to know whether the High Court or a higher court has overturned or varied it, or indeed whether that would be possible.
Subsection (3) lays out what may be considered by a court, and amendment No. 447 would add to it:
''(c) any decision relating to a policy has been unreasonably arrived at.''
If a decision has been ''unreasonably arrived at'' by an authority, surely the court should have the discretion to consider the matter and make a judgment. Amendment No. 448 would extend the period mentioned in subsection (4) from six weeks to 12 weeks. Six weeks is an unreasonable period; it is an incredibly short time in which to get the relevant advice about whether there is a case to take to the High Court and to enable the applicant to see whether finance could be raised, which would probably be necessary since such applications are very expensive. Will the Minister inform the Committee of precedents in other legislation for a six-week period?
Amendment No. 449 would insert a new subsection (8A), stating:
''The appropriate authority shall be liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved person if the High Court finds in favour of the aggrieved person.''
It seems right that if, once an applicant has gone through this expensive legal procedure, the High Court finds in their favour, it should be possible for it to award compensation. I see nothing in clause 78 to the effect that the court may award compensation, but the prospect of its doing so would be a significant deterrent to any public body that was inclined to act in an overbearing fashion.
Mr. McNulty: In essence, much of clause 78 is covered by sections 284(1) and 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The precedent for the period of six weeks is set out in section 287(4). If I had time I should explain why the notion of compensation is completely and utterly daft, but we do not have much time and I do not want to end on such an acidic note. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments, which are the most ill-thought-out that we have seen.
Mrs. Roche: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. This is a slightly unusual procedure, but it is nearly 5 o'clock and I think that the Committee did not want the occasion to pass without thanking you and Mr. Amess for the able way in which you have presided over our proceedings. Sadly, it is only this afternoon that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship, but the sitting has been conducted, like those chaired by Mr. Amess, in an extremely good-humoured way. We are grateful.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the able way in which he spoke for the Government on most of the Bill. From what he tells me, many good and enjoyable debates have been conducted in a robust manner, but with good spirits.
I also thank the Clerk, the Hansard writers and my officials for their contribution—and, of course, all the Opposition Members.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I echo the words of the Minister of State who paid gracious tribute to you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Amess. I too pay tribute to the Hansard writers, the department of the Serjeant at Arms, the police, the Clerk and anyone else who has helped with the proceedings. On the whole the sittings have been good tempered, and although much of the Bill has not been debated, we have at least given some of it an airing. I thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Pike. You have been very tolerant.
Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I too would like to thank you and Mr. Amess for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I also want to thank the entire Committee for its forbearance during my disappearance during the birth of my daughter Abigail. I add my thanks to the Clerks, Hansard and the Serjeant at Arms. The experience of my first major Front-Bench lead in Committee has been fascinating. I have certainly discovered many things, such as that Ted Heath and Westminster city council are socialists. I am not sure whether there were more mentions of jackboot or of Heathrow. We shall have to go back through Hansard, which has been so ably produced, to work out which it was. I can probably say on behalf of the whole Committee that our proceedings have been very enjoyable, if slightly frustrating.
The Chairman: Order. I should have ruled all those points of order out of order, as they were not really points of order for the Chair. However, they are accepted in the spirit in which they were meant.
It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.
Question put, That clauses 78 to 83, schedules 3 and 4, clause 84, schedule 5, clause 85, schedule 6 and clauses 86 to 90 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 3.
Division No. 24]
AYES
Edwards, Mr. Huw
Follett, Barbara
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Henderson, Mr. Ivan
Levitt, Mr. Tom
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Norris, Dan
Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wright, David
NOES
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Green, Matthew
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Committee rose at two minutes past Five o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Pike, Mr. Peter (Chairman)
Beresford, Sir Paul
Clifton-Brown, Mr.
Edwards, Mr.
Follett, Barbara
Francis, Dr.
Green, Matthew
Henderson, Mr. Ivan
Levitt, Mr.
McNulty, Mr.
Norris, Dan
Roche, Mrs.
Wilshire, Mr.
Wright, David
|
