|
Column Number: 249
Standing Committee G
Tuesday 21 January 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]
8.55 am
The Chairman: Order. Before we start our proceedings, I should point out that the Annunciators appear not to be working. That has been reported, and it is hoped that they will operate as soon as possible.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): On a point of order, Mr. Amess. How will we know what time it is if the Annunciators are not working?
The Chairman: I am advised by our ever-efficient Clerk that we shall be guided by the clock behind you, Mr. Wilshire. Clause 37
Development plan
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): I beg to move amendment No. 363, in
clause 37, page 20, line 14, at beginning insert 'or'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 362, in
clause 37, page 20, line 14, leave out 'or published'.
No. 238, in
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Good morning Mr. Amess. It is nice to see you back in the Chair, as it is to see the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) back in his place. We extend the usual courtesies to him and hope that his wife is doing well .
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Since so many people are curious to know, I am told that the hon. Member for Ludlow is father to a girl, and I think that congratulations are in order.
The Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept the good wishes of the whole of the Committee.
Matthew Green (Ludlow): Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I thank the Committee for its kind thoughts. Yes, we have had a baby girl, and, although she is six weeks premature, she is very healthy, as is my wife. I am delighted, and I thank the Committee for its forbearance.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: That is wonderful news, and quite in order.
Column Number: 250
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The whole Committee rejoices in the news, and I hope that mother and daughter will continue to do well.
We come to part 3. Under the absurdly tight time schedule within which we must debate the Bill, we have debated only four of the 11 clauses in part 1, and only as far as clause 17 of the 36 clauses in part 2. The most important provisions, on which the rest of the Bill stands, are in parts 1 and 2, yet we have debated less than half of those parts.
From the number of organisations whose representatives have come to my office, it is becoming quite clear that planning practitioners are increasingly realising that the Bill will bring chaos, delay and uncertainty into the system. Several lawyers left my office last night rubbing their hands with glee, saying that the High Court would be littered with applications for judicial review.
The Chairman: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is beginning his speech. However, I remind him of the amendments that he and his hon. Friends have tabled, and ask him, kindly, to draw his remarks very closely to those amendments.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Amendment No. 363 is put into context by the fact that the Bill is very bad and will bring the system into chaos. The clause enshrines some of the Bill's complexity, which we have already discussed. In particular, I refer to clause 2, which is about the local plan process, and which I think is the worst aspect of the Bill. Why on earth must we have the total complexity of local development schemes, local development plans, local development plan documents and local development frameworks enshrined in guidance, when we could have what is in the Welsh part? There is a need for amendments Nos. 363 and 362, and for amendment No. 238, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
In contrast to what I have said, the explanatory notes say:
''Clause 37 defines the development plan by reference to the simplified hierarchy of plans and documents created by this Bill. It also applies the definition to existing relevant legislation.''
If the matter is simple, I am a Dutchman, and since I certainly am not a Dutchman, the matter is not simple by any means. I am not alone in saying that: many practitioners think it simple too.
Amendment No. 363 would clarify subsection (5), which states that a
''conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to be adopted, approved or published''.
That is too restricted, and the clause should refer to ''the last document to be adopted or approved or published''. Otherwise, it implies that only those plans adopted by the local planning authority and approved by the Secretary of State will be considered, and that is far too high a hurdle. The wording will tend to enshrine extreme complexity in the area of conflict resolution, and there will undoubtedly be conflict.
The Law Society tells us that the purpose of amendment No. 238 is to provide a means of resolving conflicts between local development plans and regional spatial strategies. It says that subsection
Column Number: 251
(5) provides a procedure for dealing with conflicts between policies in the development plan, but that the clause must also make provision for conflicts between the plan and the regional spatial strategy.
Although I understand the Law Society's reasons for probing the subject, I would almost say that the local development scheme should prevail in any conflict with the RSS. After all, it is likely to be far more democratic and acceptable to local people than a spatial strategy for a remote, unknown region. That is particularly true where the strategy is drawn up by a regional chamber composed entirely of indirectly elected members. That would have some democratic legitimacy if and when we got as far as having elected regional assemblies, but I do not believe that most regions will get that far, so strategies will not have that legitimacy. Yet, by and large, regional spatial strategies will take precedence.
Conflict resolution is important, and I hope that we shall not need it. If nothing is done about the Bill's complexity, however, I am certain that we shall, so, for goodness' sake, let us get the provisions right.
Matthew Green: One danger of speaking at the tail end of a debate is that the person who moves the amendments may have said everything that one planned to say.
The Law Society suggested amendment No. 238, which I tabled to probe what the Minister intends to do if there is a conflict between local development plans and regional spatial strategies. I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who suggested that it would not be clever to give the regional planning body powers over local development plans, particularly if it was not an elected regional assembly.
If the Bill does not propose a method for dealing with conflicts, they will end up awaiting resolution on the Secretary of State's desk. Once again, decisions will be made in Westminster when they could have been more appropriately made regionally or, particularly, locally. The amendment is intended to probe the Minister's thinking and to see whether there is a plan for dealing—through regulations or otherwise—with conflicts between local development plans and regional spatial strategies.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): My understanding was that amendment No. 363 was consequential on amendment No. 362. In other words, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold sought, for very sound reasons, to delete ''published'', and the wording in subsection (5) would therefore read ''adopted or approved''. Perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm that.
It may be surprising that I partly disagree with amendment No. 238, of which, as the hon. Member for Ludlow acknowledged, the Law Society is the author. It is logical that if there is conflict between a local development plan and a regional spatial strategy, the latter should take precedence because it is produced by a greater organisation, which is responsible for town and country planning matters
Column Number: 252
and development plans in its region. I strongly believe that directly elected local planning authorities should take precedence over unelected regional bodies unless and until regional assemblies are directly elected. That is crucial. I apologise for repeating it, but I want to take every opportunity to implore the Government to think again and not to activate the parts of the Bill that give powers to regional bodies unless and until the regional bodies are directly elected.
Mr. Wilshire: In my 15 years in the House, I have learned never to tangle with the Clerk's department, but it crosses my mind that it would have been easier for me to explain the two amendments if amendment No. 362 had come before amendment No. 363. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said, inserting ''or'' follows from the later leaving out of ''or published'', so amendment No. 363 would simply make an amended subsection readable—
The Chairman: Order. It is correct for amendment No. 363 to come before amendment No. 362 because that is the order in which the amendments relate to the Bill.
Mr. Wilshire: I said that over my 15 years in the House I had learned not to tangle with the Clerk's department, and I have just proved why.
For all practical purposes, the concerns that caused me to table the two amendments are dealt with by amendment No. 362, which would omit the words ''or published''. I readily accept the need to decide what to do when there is a conflict, and I shall discuss the point more generally when I speak to amendment No. 238. I know that I have a suspicious mind—I thought that Opposition politicians were supposed to have suspicious minds so that they could question the Government—but I have the idea that if something is about to happen that a planning authority does not like, it will simply publish a document, although its contents will not subsequently be approved by the Secretary of State or its provisions adopted. If the clause is accepted, planning authorities will need only to whack out a document and say, ''It was published much later than anything else, and until we deal with it or scrap it, it takes precedence.'' I am sure that the Minister will tell me why I need not worry, but I see that loophole. The publication of an unadopted, unapproved document will take precedence over approved and adopted plans that may have been in place for some time.
I leave it to the Clerk to decide whether amendment No. 363 is taken before amendment No. 362 or the other way around, because she is the font of all wisdom on such matters, but the gist of my point is contained in amendment No. 362, which would insert ''or'' where it is needed.
On amendment No. 238, I have also learned over the years not to tangle with the Law Society, but I shall do so on this occasion because I do not follow its solution to an obvious problem. It is right for us to require some way of resolving such difficulties. It was probably my headmaster who taught me to think like this, and that was probably his intention. He had been a headmaster for 30 years, and he would never allow more than 12 school rules at a time. Although the rules
Column Number: 253
were revised over the years, rule 12 always stayed the same, and it stated that all the other rules were no substitute for common sense. The Law Society is breaking my old headmaster's 12th rule.
Some spatial strategies will be produced by bigger and more professional organisations, perhaps with more wisdom; however, as the years go by—I cannot think of an example, but I do not believe that this will be the exception to the general rule—there will be occasions on which something happens that results in conflict because no one quite got round to revising the regional spatial strategy.
The world moves on, however, and local situations happen. For instance, there could have been a major redundancy or something could have happened in the area that required a new approach; and it is done through the local plan. However, there could be a clash. If we were to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow—or the Law Society's amendment—we would accept that common sense could not be brought to bear to resolve that conflict.
I accept entirely that there must be a mechanism for resolving such conflicts. Indeed, there probably is a loophole in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will address it and, if necessary, come forward on Report with something that says what should happen in such circumstances. However, I do not support a hard-and-fast rule that must always find in someone's favour, because that would prevent the possibility of change—and of common sense being applied.
| 
