| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 210
Twinn, Dr IanViggers, Peter
Walden, George
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Waller, Gary
Ward, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Waterson, Nigel
Wells, Bowen
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John
Widdecombe, Ann
Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Wilkinson, John
Wilshire, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Wolfson, Mark
Wood, Timothy
Yeo, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. David Willetts.
Column 210
Question accordingly negatived.Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the developments in regard to Brent Spar since Prime Minister's Question Time, when the Prime Minister made an explicit statement on the matter, and given the change of mind by Shell in the interim, have you been given notice that a Minister will make a fresh statement to the House this evening? As the issue is of crucial importance and there has been a major change of policy by the Government and Shell since Prime Minister's Question Time, will you ensure that the House is briefed before anybody else?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The answer to the first question is that I have received no such notification. The other matters are really the responsibility of the Government and I cannot ensure anything from the Chair, but I am sure that those points will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today's events are not only a triumph for the environment movement and the general public, but a total humiliation for the Prime Minister. Although it may appear that matters are resolved, Government policy apparently has not changed. They have made no statement and, potentially, another 50 installations could be buried under the North sea. Surely the Government must explain to the House whether Government policy has changed or whether the decision was taken by Shell.
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Prime Minister repeatedly affirmed the Government's policy to dump at sea, would it not be appropriate for him to come to the House to explain the latest developments and
Column 211
apologise to those hon. Members he disparaged during Prime Minister's Question Time who tried to put forward just this policy?Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely that is absolute nonsense. There is no Government responsibility whatsoever. The company made a commercial decision which was for that company to make, and the Prime Minister has no responsibility whatever in the matter.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are well aware, there is direct Government responsibility. Yesterday, the Prime Minister himself described the proposal for onshore decommissioning as "incredible". As the Prime Minister put his personal authority behind that policy yesterday and today, is not he the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House? Usually, when the Prime Minister backs people to the hilt, they end up sinking. In this case they have ended up not sinking. Are we not due an explanation?
Several hon. Members rose --
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear to the House, as the representative of the Chair, that these matters do not lie within my control.
Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Dr. Godman: No. I wish to make a point concerning the announcement of the change in direction. As the hon. Member who first demanded in the House that the installation be brought ashore, may I point out by way of
Column 212
clarification that the Government have every responsibility for such decisions under part I of the Petroleum Act 1987? The Government allowed Shell to go ahead with its plans until they lost their collective nerve.Several hon. Members rose --
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must beware of this turning into a mini-debate. The point of order for the Chair is clear. I can only draw the matter to the attention of the members of the Treasury Bench. Apart from that, it is not my responsibility.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the points of order began, two Scottish Office Ministers have appeared on the Treasury Bench. Would it be appropriate for one of those to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, and would you agree to that, or would it be better if the President of the Board of Trade came to the House to make such a statement, because it is he who now acts on behalf of the Prime Minister to mop everything up?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Those are all very interesting suggestions, but they are not matters for me. We must move on to the next business.
MENTAL HEALTH (PATIENTS IN THE COMMUNITY) BILL [ LORDS ] [ MONEY ]
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords] , it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Column 213
Town and Country Planning (Costs of Enquiries etc.) Bill Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.Clause 1
Costs of holding certain inquiries etc.
7.20 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 2, at end insert--
`(5A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the provisions of subsection (5) above shall provide for the application of a service level agreement governing the administration of a qualifying inquiry and the performance of any person appointed to hold it.'.
The amendment would incorporate the concept of service level agreements between the Planning Inspectorate and local authorities in the Bill.
As the Minister knows, the local authority associations are concerned that, as the requirement for inquiries into development plans is established in legislation, local planning authorities are being required to use a service that is offered by only one agency for a function that they are statutorily required to fulfil. In those circumstances, the Opposition consider it essential that the level of service required of the inspectorate is formally set out with some means of redress for the planning authority if the inspectorate fails to perform adequately.
That issue was raised jointly in Committee with an amendment that would have introduced a contractual relationship between the inspectorate and the local planning authority. The Minister will recall--if I may draw his attention away from his discussions with the deputy Chief Whip to the amendment--that in his response the Government accepted
"the need implied for a more satisfactory footing for the arrangements between the planning inspectorate and the individual planning authority on whose behalf the planning inspector holds a development plan inquiry. We appreciate that the planning authorities want to have more say in inquiry arrangements in which they are required to pay what in some cases will be comparatively large sums."
I am sure that the Minister will recall saying that. He went on to argue that the arrangements should not be included in the Bill. He continued:
"Many of the factors that influence the practical operation of development plan inquiries such as the number of objections are outside the Planning Inspectorate's control . . . that is why there are no targets and penalties for the Planning Inspectorate. The difficulty is that there are numerous other parties in the local plan inquiry process, which is not a simple matter of discussion between the planning authority and the Planning Inspectorate."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E , 17 May 1995; c. 19.]
I am sure that the Minister recalls saying that too.
In response to other amendments in Committee, the Minister referred to the fact that the inspectorate had proposed a draft service level agreement with local authorities. He has sent a copy of that draft agreement to my hon. Friends and me. He also told us that he had placed a copy in the Library of the House.
The Minister mounted an argument of sorts against a strictly contractual relationship between the inspectorate and planning authorities, but his argument does not justify
Column 214
making no reference in the Bill to the introduction of a more formal relationship between the inspectorate and local planning authorities.The local authority associations have been in discussion with the Department for some time and I believe that some progress has been made in trying to resolve the outstanding issues. The amendment would simply include the principle of such an agreement in the Bill without specifying precisely what its contents should be.
It is important, however, that the service level agreement should address the fact that local planning authorities do not have the usual redress of seeking an alternative supplier should the service provided by the inspectorate prove not to be of adequate quality or to provide value for money.
The Opposition believe that the service level agreement should be explicit about the level of service to be provided; measures to be used in assessing the quality of that service; provisions for receiving feedback on quality from the consumers of the service--the local authorities and others who are involved in the planning process--mechanisms by which significant difficulties may be tackled; methods for redress should either party fail to deliver its agreed performance; methods for the resolution of disputes, such as circumstances in which the local planning authority may wish to query matters of factual veracity or reasoning, or to clarify the inspector's recommendation; and, finally, the approach to be taken in the event of a significant disruption such as the illness of an inspector.
It may not be necessary for the universal service level agreement to contain administrative arrangements such as those for making documents publicly available, for the referencing of documents, for the hours and days of the week for sittings, for timing and for exchanging written evidence, for the procedure for giving evidence and for cross-examination, and for round-table discussions. Some of those matters may depend on the circumstances of the inquiry and the nature of the issues raised. Some may also need to be agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting.
Equity between different inquiries demands that the procedures followed are as universal as possible. The service level agreement could play an important role in establishing a common approach. Matters that are specific to an inquiry should be dealt with in a local supplement to the agreement to be prepared after the pre-inquiry meeting.
This simple amendment would formalise discussions and agreements that are currently proceeding. There is nothing controversial about it and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): I support the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), because I too believe that the introduction of the service agreement is welcome but that it needs to be formalised.
Inquiries are becoming more complex and important because so much now depends on them. It is difficult to get a development proposal agreed once the local structure plans have been finalised. We should, therefore, look hard at the procedures that we are using for inquiries and inspectors. On Second Reading, I said:
"We need some form of guidance about what to expect from our inspectors. The Government are keen on charters at the moment. Perhaps there should be an inspectors charter, which would lay down some ground rules on how they would work and what local authorities could expect from them."--[ Official Report , 12 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 312.]
Column 215
It was therefore very welcome when, shortly thereafter, the Government made proposals very much along those lines. I welcomed that in Committee and I welcome it tonight, but it is right that the procedure should be formalised. We do not want the proposals to go ahead merely as proposals and not to be properly implemented as they will be if the amendment is agreed tonight. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree it.The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Only a lawyer could think out amendment No. 1. Theroute suggested by the amendment is likely to end in a legally binding contract that would remove the administrative flexibility that the planning authority and Planning Inspectorate need to operate inquiries efficiently.
The need of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to regulate everything is part of the difficulty of his whole thinking. We desperately need administrative flexibility, which is what we seek. Under the amendment, the contract would have to be enforceable by either party. It would almost certainly increase the scope of disputes. It would not improve the local planning process and only lawyers would improve their income.
We prefer the approach of proceeding by agreement between those responsible for managing the development and the planning inquiry process. Officials in my Department and in the Planning Inspectorate are consulting officers of the local authority associations and the Royal Town Planning Institute on the draft of a service agreement. 7.30 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Will the Minister give way?
Sir Paul Beresford: I shall not give way. We have been through this time and again, and it is a waste of time continuing with it. The aim is to finalise an agreement that the associations could commend to their members as soon as practicable. The Planning Inspectorate's aim is to offer the agreement to individual planning authorities, where the terms have been finalised, following the current consultation. We do not need the amendment. It would be counter-productive.
Dr. Jones: Will the Minister confirm a comment that he made in Committee--that he would consider establishing a working party with local authority bodies to consider the draft service level agreement? Is that still a proposal or has he withdrawn it?
Sir Paul Beresford: I repeat that a useful meeting was held on 2 June and that a further meeting, to discuss a revised text of the draft service agreement, is planned in the near future.
Question put, That the amendment be made:--
The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 197.
Division No. 168] [7.30 pm
AYES
Column 215
Ainger, NickAinsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Austin-Walker, John
Column 215
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Bayley, Hugh
Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bennett, Andrew F
Betts, Clive
Blunkett, David
Column 216
Boateng, PaulBradley, Keith
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burden, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Chidgey, David
Chisholm, Malcolm
Clapham, Michael
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Corbyn, Jeremy
Corston, Jean
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Davidson, Ian
Denham, John
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Donohoe, Brian H
Dowd, Jim
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eastham, Ken
Enright, Derek
Etherington, Bill
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Foster, Don (Bath)
Foulkes, George
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Gapes, Mike
George, Bruce
Gerrard, Neil
Godman, Dr Norman A
Godsiff, Roger
Gordon, Mildred
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Gunnell, John
Hall, Mike
Hanson, David
Heppell, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Kate
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ingram, Adam
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Jamieson, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Keen, Alan
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Khabra, Piara S
| Next Section
| Home Page |