Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 73, page 53, line 4, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 117, in clause 73, page 53, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

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.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

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 (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

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 (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

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.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

We are just debating amendments 116 and 117.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

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.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

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 (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

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 (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

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.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

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.