Clause 6 - RSS: Secretary of State's functions
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
6:00 pm

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 137, in

clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

'(3) Before adopting proposals for the alteration or replacement of the RSS, the RPB shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as—

(a) they consider ought to be examined; or

(b) the Secretary of State directs.'.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 136, in

clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Amendment No. 138, in

clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection 4.

Government amendment No. 75.

Amendment No. 139, in

clause 6, page 4, leave out line 22.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

Normal business will now resume; there is just over an hour to go.

By leaving out subsections (3) and (4) and inserting a new subsection (3), amendment No. 137 is designed to ensure that an examination in public is held on any draft revision of the regional spatial strategy—yes, we are back to RSSs. Section 35B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires county councils

to hold a public examination of an alteration to a structure plan. The same requirement should apply to a regional planning body altering its regional spatial strategy.

In deciding whether a public examination is to be held, subsection 4(c) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the

''level of interest shown in the draft''.

I am unsure what that would mean. Would it be the number of letters of objection, the number of people attending local consultative meetings or the amount of column inches in local newspapers? It is unclear what the ''level of interest'' is. It was a major topic of discussion when I worked on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill just under a year ago. Those discussions went on for weeks, but I do not want us to go on for weeks, and we clearly cannot. I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarification.

Amendment No. 136 is broadly along the same lines in that it seeks to ensure a public examination. It is designed to improve public confidence in strategic planning, which is arguably the most critical level of planning for major infrastructure developments. It would also ensure that the draft was subject to effective scrutiny. That is done by removing the ''may'' and inserting ''must'', so that the examination would have to be held in public. Again, if the Minister is minded to refuse the amendments, as Ministers often are, an explanation of the likely reasons why an examination would be held in public or, more importantly, why the Secretary of State might not want to hold one in public, would be very useful.

Amendment No. 138 would leave out subsection (4). That would take away the Secretary of State's power to decide whether an examination in public would be held in respect of the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. Essentially, that is in line with previous amendments. If there must be an examination in public, this is the corollary amendment, which removes the Secretary of State's powers to decide which examination that is.

Amendment No. 139 would delete line 22, which is a separate way of trying to deal with the matter. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 138, amendment No. 139 will be superfluous, but I suspect that he probably will not, so I am giving him another chance. Amendment No. 139 would delete the caveat whereby the Secretary of State, when deciding whether an examination in public is to be held, must have regard to

''such other matters as he thinks appropriate.''

That is a fairly overarching power for the Secretary of State. He can clearly think that virtually any matter is appropriate or not, so that gives him carte blanche to decide whether there should be an examination in public. Essentially, he could remove paragraphs (a) to (c) because he thought that many factors were more important than his regard for those paragraphs. Effectively, paragraph (d) is a catch-all to allow the Secretary of State to make whichever decision he wishes, regardless of the position in paragraphs (a)

to (c). If the Minister is not minded to accept amendment No. 139, he might at least explain what some of those matters are that the Secretary of State might think appropriate—just for clarification.

Amendment No. 75 is a clarificatory Government amendment, which we are happy to support.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I have much sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, so the love-in between the Opposition parties referred to by the Minister still goes on. I am sure that it will not continue for the rest of the evening, but it does for the time being.

Reading clause 6, I feel rather aggrieved. The Minister went at me pretty hard over independent examination and who might appear during the independent examination of local plans. Whereas I sought to put in the Bill a minor safeguard to prevent local plan inspectors from becoming absolutely swamped, under this clause there may be no right whatever to appear before an independent inspector, or to make recommendations to the Secretary of State that have to be considered. Clause 6 is pretty all-encompassing, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. I agree with him, and I would like to see subsection (4) abolished.

I particularly dislike subsection (4)(d), which amendment No. 139 would strike out. I dislike the subjective way in which the paragraph is written. It gives anyone who is aggrieved and has to go to a judicial review yet another hurdle to overcome. A far better and more objective direct wording, due to that additional hurdle, would be ''such other matters as are appropriate'' instead of ''he thinks appropriate''. The Secretary of State, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, may think anything he likes, but if one is writing legislation it should be clear and objective. Therefore, I dislike the wording in paragraph (d) and I strongly urge the Committee to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments. I hope that he presses amendment No. 137 to a Division.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

The intention behind amendment No. 137 seems to be to make the regional planning body, rather than the Secretary of State, responsible for organising an examination in public; it would have to organise one unless the Secretary of State directed otherwise. Matters that the RPB thought should be examined or those directed by the Secretary of State would be considered. I note that the amendment is modelled on the provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires a local planning authority to cause an inquiry or other hearing for proposals for the alteration or replacement of plans. However, it is important to remember that the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's policy and it is therefore right that responsibility for an examination in public should rest with him. Placing that responsibility on the RPB instead would not be acceptable.

Amendments Nos. 136, 138 and 139 would restrict the Secretary of State's discretion on whether an examination in public should be held. Amendments

Nos. 136 and 138 would remove entirely the Secretary of State's discretion on whether an examination in public were held. The effect would be to require an examination in all cases, even for the most minor revisions to regional spatial strategy, so I cannot agree to the amendments.

I turn to the points made by the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Ludlow. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked what is meant by the phrase

''the level of interest shown in the draft''.

The answer is one of common sense. If there have been only very few representations and they have said that there has been little to object to, the Secretary of State may decide that an examination is not necessary. However, that would depend on the particular circumstances with regard to the revision of the regional spatial strategy. I repeat that the proposals are common sense. The ethos and content of the Bill are in favour of transparency and community involvement—I think that I have laboured that point almost to death.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Does the Minister not see in the local plan process a huge disparity in treatment? As I understand it, every local plan document will have to be subject to an independent examination, yet the Secretary of State may or may not decide to have an independent examination of the regional plan, which, as we discussed earlier, could have huge implications for people's lives. There is a huge disparity between the two plan-making processes.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I believe that the words of Ministers as recorded in Hansard are taken reasonably seriously. My words have been absolutely clear in their intent. The Bill is clear in its intent, which is in favour of the greatest reasonable involvement of the public in drawing up the regional spatial strategy and all the local development documents. I do not know what more to say, other than this: the hon. Gentleman chooses a literal interpretation of the wording of the Bill and talks about the potential arbitrary, almost despotic, response of a potential Secretary of State. The intent, ethos and character of our exchanges have demonstrated that that would not occur, but if it did there would be a variety of recourses in the public domain to challenge any such procedure.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I am reassured by the tone of what the Minister says, but I do not want him to sit down before he has discussed the words

''such other matters as he thinks appropriate.''

If he thinks that there may be things he cannot foresee in respect of paragraphs (a) to (c), but that they might come up in future, would it not be more appropriate for there to be provision for regulations allowing him to have regard to other things? As it is, the words

''such other matters as he thinks appropriate''

will receive no scrutiny at any point. I am a bit concerned that the clause is out of line with the tone of the rest of the Bill, in which he leaves room for regulations should new factors come in. In this example, he is not leaving it to regulations—it is entirely down to him.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the criteria set out in clause 6(4), which stipulate the considerations to which the Secretary of State must have regard when deciding whether to arrange for an examination to be held:

''(a) the extent of the revisions proposed by the draft . . . (b) the extent''

and nature of

''consultation on the draft before it was published''

and

''(c) the level of interest shown in the draft''.

The last paragraph refers to

''such other matters as he thinks appropriate''.

The hon. Gentleman alleges that the Secretary of State can think that any matter is important and therefore has carte blanche to make whichever decision he wishes. However, the Secretary of State must always take account of paragraphs (a) to (c)—the first three criteria—so it is not true to say that clause 6(4)(d) gives him carte blanche. The Secretary of State must act reasonably, as I am sure any Labour Secretary of State would.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I have no doubt that he would act reasonably, and he is beginning to reassure me. It might be helpful if he made it clear whether if there were a significant ''level of interest'' in the draft, as in clause 6(4)(c), and there had not been as much consultation as would be carried out in other regions, anything else would be insignificant and the Secretary of State would feel, on the ground of reasonableness, that he would have to have a public examination.

Mr Keith Hill (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Streatham, Labour)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is scraping the barrel. Before I respond to that, let me deal with the suggestion that there is a disparity in treatment regarding development plan documents, which will always be subject to an examination in public. The representations made on a draft RSS revision will always be considered by the Secretary of State. The question is, does he need an examination in front of a panel to help him?

While we are dealing with issues raised by hon. Gentlemen, another thought has sprung into my head. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about factors that the Secretary of State cannot foresee and about the Secretary of State not having the power to make regulations. The answer to that, it appears, is that he needs to make a reasonable decision at the time.

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would mean that regulations would have to be made for a particular case, and might not then be relevant to all cases. Such regulations may take something—time—and may come too late to apply to a specific decision. Frankly, I could not have put it better myself. Let me go on with my view.

These criteria are entirely sensible and appropriate for making such a decision. In addition, draft PPS11 states that there is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held. The Secretary of State may decide that an examination is unnecessary

only in the exceptional circumstances of a minor revision, and subject to the criteria that I cited earlier. It should not surprise the hon. Gentleman that, to date, the Secretary of State has never decided that a public examination is not warranted.

Similarly, amendment No. 139 would represent an unwarranted reduction in the Secretary of State's discretion. It would prevent him from taking other matters into account, beyond those in the Bill at clause 6(4), as he sees appropriate, when deciding whether to hold an examination in public. That seems unhelpful: we do not have particular matters in mind but the views of regional stakeholders, for example, might be relevant.

Government amendment No. 75 is a small but important amendment reflecting the importance that we attach to consultation within the regional planning process. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consider the nature, as well as the extent, of the consultation undertaken by the regional planning body. That focus on the quality as well as the quantity of consultation is reflected in the draft regulations to part 1 of the Bill and PPS11. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister has been trying hard and the hour is late. He is incredibly reasonable and I am sure that under his stewardship, there would be always be an examination in public, but I can foresee circumstances in which an individual, a group of individuals or perhaps even an entire local planning authority was unhappy with the regional spatial plan, particularly—reverting to the issue that we debated before the tea break—on the allocation of numbers of houses. I can foresee circumstances in which a different Secretary of State would take a fairly cavalier attitude, decide not to hold an independent examination and get away with it under the Bill.

I do not want to labour the point but I shall quote clause 19(1) on the local plan procedure:

''The local planning authority must submit every development plan document''—

some of those will be fairly small—

''to the Secretary of State for independent examination.''

There must be an independent examination; there is no discretion in that case. Some of those are really petty matters, whereas the regional spatial strategy is a hugely important document, affecting people's lives greatly. There is a disparity in the Bill. I would not be surprised if others in another place wanted to come back to this. I cannot understand why, if the Minister is so certain that there will be consultation and an independent examination, he will not accept a change of wording in the Bill to that extent.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

One frustration with the debate arose when the Minister read from draft PPS11. He said:

''There is a strong presumption that an examination-in-public will be held and it is only in exceptional circumstances of a minor revision and subject to the criteria set out in clause 6(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Secretary of State may decide an examination is unnecessary.''

If the Minister had responded to the debate immediately and reassured us with that significant and strong statement, which would have been on the record, many of the interventions would have been unnecessary. It is frustrating, although only a minor gripe, that in PPS11, the statement is not under the heading of ''The Examination-in-Public'', which is what we are talking about, but towards the end of the section headed ''Submission of the Draft Revision to the Secretary of State''. If I had known that, I could have avoided tabling the amendments.

With that statement, more than anything else that he said, the Minister has reassured me that the system will work in that there will be examinations in public in all but the most exceptional circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 75, in

clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out

'to which there was any'

and insert 'and nature of the'.—[Keith Hill.]

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 the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.