Clause 73
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords]
5:45 pm
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and 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.