|
Division No.
42] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 72
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
73
Examination in public
Julia
Goldsworthy: I beg to move amendment 116, in
clause 73, page 53, line 4, leave
out ‘may’ and insert
‘must’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 117, in
clause 73, page 53, line 16, leave
out subsection
(5).
Julia
Goldsworthy: The clause relates to the circumstances under
which the responsible regional authorities can call in for an
examination in public any draft revisions that they make to their
regional spatial strategy. We tabled the amendments because we are
concerned that the Bill gives responsible regional authorities only the
option of calling for such examinations, not a requirement to do
so.
Mr.
Curry: I am slightly puzzled because I recall a group of
amendments that the Liberal Democrats tabled that sought to replace the
word “must” with the word “may”, and
amendment 116 seeks to replace the word “may” with the
word “must”. I am confused about where we are
heading.
Julia
Goldsworthy: We are trying, in all aspects of the position
that we are taking on the Bill, to encourage people as much as possible
to make a contribution and to have an impact on the process. Our
concern is that the responsible regional authorities alone have that
option; individuals might have huge concerns, but they have no recourse
to get them
heard. I
am sure that the Minister, in her response, will say that there is a
route for people to call in if they have concerns. For example, if the
responsible regional authorities undertook a revision that they said
was not significant enough to require an examination in public, what
would the process be if members of the public felt that those revisions
were significant? At the moment I do not see any ability for there to
be a call-in for an examination in public, which is why
amendment 116 replaces “may” with
“must” and why we have consequential amendment
117, which is a mechanism to ensure that people have the option to get
those examinations heard and on the record. Whether we press the
amendments to a vote will depend on whether we are satisfied that such
a call-in option and process is available.
Mr.
Raynsford: I am confused by the hon. Lady’s
amendment, because she proposes to substitute “may” for
“must” in subsection (1) but does not propose to
eliminate subsection (2), which leaves to the body the discretion to
decide whether to arrange for an examination in public. If she follows
down subsection (2), she will see exactly her points of
concern—an examination in public should occur when there is an
issue of sufficient material relevance or which arouses sufficient
public interest to merit it, but there should not be an obligation for
an examination in public for a de minimis alteration, perhaps just
changing one small detail. Does she not understand that the clause as
currently drafted allows exactly that discretion, with the safeguard of
the Secretary of State being able to insist on a call-in for an
examination in public if the authority fails to do so? The hon.
Lady’s concern appears to be met rather better by the clause as
drafted than by her
amendments.
Julia
Goldsworthy: As I was explaining when the right hon.
Gentleman intervened, this is a series of probing amendments, to make
sure that the safeguards are in place. As we have seen in a number of
other clauses, the instinctive response of the Government seems to be
to provide safeguards by giving a power to the Secretary of State. We
would like to approach it from the opposite perspective: we think the
safeguards need to be put in place by giving the powers to people. We
shall listen carefully to the Minister’s comments, but she needs
to go further in demonstrating how the entire process is designed to be
responsive to the views and needs of people rather than to those of
various quangos and other interested parties, which seems to be the
main thrust behind an awful lot of the previous clauses
debated.
Mr.
Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I
seek your guidance. Are we debating just amendments 116 and 117, or are
we debating stand part as well? Forgive
me.
The
Chairman: We are just debating amendments 116 and
117.
Mr.
Jackson: In that case, I shall be extremely circumspect
and say that we will reserve judgment on the amendment and on how we
vote—if there is a Division—until we have heard the
specific answers of the
Minister.
Ms
Winterton: As has been said, the aim of the clause is to
provide for the regional strategy to be subject to testing by an
examination in public held by an independent person. That principle was
endorsed by the feedback to our consultation last year. As has been
said, the Liberal Democrat amendments would make the EIP mandatory.
What we have tried to achieve in the legislation is to enable the
responsible regional authorities to consider the extent of revisions
and the level of interest when deciding whether to arrange for an EIP.
It is important to give the responsible regional authorities that
discretion, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich
and Woolwich said, if there were only minor and uncontroversial
adjustments to a strategy, it would be ridiculous to say that there had
to be an examination in public by an independent person, which then had
to be
sent to the Secretary of State. We are trying to capture the idea that
the strategies will be able to be scrutinised, but at the same time
find a reasonable way to do it.
If the
responsible regional authorities ignore the extent of the revisions and
the level of interest and say, “We are simply not going to have
any kind of examination in public,” the Secretary of State has
the option of arranging one instead. That is why we have a fall-back in
subsection (6). We certainly feel that that is an important reserve
power, which amendment 117 would remove. I think that we have struck
the right balance: the provision is not over-burdensome to the
responsible regional authorities, but at the same time, we have a power
whereby people can make representations if they feel that the
responsible regional authorities are ignoring their views. For that
reason, I hope that the amendments will be
withdrawn.
Julia
Goldsworthy: Our question is: what happens in the event of
a dispute over whether the revisions are significant? At the very least
we want reassurances that if the Secretary of State is to be the person
who makes that decision, a low threshold needs to be set for making the
decision to call the matter into an examination in
public.
Mr.
Jackson: By way of support, the right hon. Member for
Greenwich and Woolwich used the term “de minimis”. We
know from our experience and from consultation with our constituents
that “de minimis” can mean different things to different
people. If one looks at matters such as the Gypsy and Traveller policy
or density targets in the east of England—the regional spatial
strategy—and the whole question of examinations in public, one
sees that the revisions there are not de minimis in anyone’s
book. I very much empathise with the hon. Lady in that respect and I
can see the dangers that she highlights.
Julia
Goldsworthy: To make a perhaps mischievous point, given
that we have eight pages of primary legislation on how local
authorities should respond to petitions, perhaps some provision should
have been made for responsible regional authorities to respond. Some
form of a petition system would be the best way for people to register
concerns if they felt that the revisions were significant enough to
warrant an examination in public. I would have preferred to see a
mechanism such as that, which allows people to get their voices heard,
rather than having to appeal to the Secretary of State to make a
judgment. If the Government were being consistent in the application of
their principles, perhaps we would have seen a petition system to allow
for the matter to be called in, instead of seeing recourse to the
Secretary of State. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Jackson: We remain slightly uncomfortable about clause
73(2)(b), which refers
to “the
level of interest shown in the draft revision”.
We are concerned about
the wording. We recognise that the examination in public is a vital
element of local democracy and local accountability. I hope the
Minister will also be willing to discuss subsection (7), which states,
rather oddly:
“No
person has a right to be heard at an examination in public under this
section.” She
might say that that is a formulation used in the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, but I do not know why it is necessary. It
seems extremely prescriptive to put in the Bill the fact that someone
does not have a right to contribute.
6
pm
Ms
Winterton: I will address the hon. Gentleman’s last
point, because I feel that I have covered most of the surrounding
issues previously. I confirm that there is not an absolute right for a
person to be heard at an examination in public. It is for the EIP panel
to decide whom to invite to take part. That is important when making
sure that any examination is fair and proportionate. It is in the Bill
simply for that
reason. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
5.
Division
No.
43] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 73
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
74Matters
to be taken into account in
revision Question
put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
5.
Division
No.
44] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 74
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
