| Draft Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2003
|
|
Matthew Green (Ludlow): We welcome the order unreservedly. We want it to be in practice. If anything, however, it has arrived perhaps a year later than we would have liked. There has been talk of the order for some time and it is a shame that it has taken so long to be drafted. Unlike the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I shall not look for conflict when there is none. I just want to touch on a few general points. The hon. Gentleman said that those without access to the web and e-mail facilities might receive a poorer service. His worry was genuine. We consulted the Royal Town Planning Institute. Mr. McNulty: By e-mail? Matthew Green: I do not know. We received information about the Wandsworth pathfinder project. Wandsworth is a Conservative-run council. Its experiment has shown that speeding up and improving access for those with online services has led staff of the often overstretched planning department to have more time to concentrate on those without IT facilities. Far from causing problems for those without an electronic means of communication, it has enabled planning staff to concentrate on them. I hope that that will be the trend throughout the country. I should begin to worry if, as a result of the order, planning departments started to shed staff and councils regarded it as a cheap fix to knock down council tax by a penny or two. I hope that that does not happen. I am pleased to add the support of the Liberal Democrats to the order. It is very welcome, if a little overdue. I hope that we can proceed without too much further ado.
9.16 amMr. McNulty: I say at the start, half tongue in cheek, that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) made an entirely churlish contribution. The questions asked by the hon. Member for Cotswold were fair and reasonable. They were not meant to be Column Number: 009 destructive or wrecking. When we take the right action, the usual charge made by the Liberal Democrats is that not enough money is thrown at such measures. Now they are saying that we have been a year late. I hesitate to rush to the Library to read the Liberal Democrat manifesto, but I doubt whether electronic planning systems were mentioned; I doubt that the party has been waiting since 1997 or 2001 for such measures to be implemented.Mr. Clifton-Brown: If Liberal Democrat Members were so keen on electronic communication in the planning system, why did they not table a new clause to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, asking me to delve into the minds of Liberal Democrat Members is foolish. The point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold at the beginning of his speech was slightly offline in the sense that we are not discussing secondary legislation that seeks to smuggle in provisions. It is a complex order that would amend and—to use an awful phrase—enable much legislation that is untouched by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right. He quoted clause 41(4) of the Bill, the catch-all provision. Anything that happens after that Bill has received Royal Assent will be free to be developed electronically. The questions that I have been asked are entirely reasonable, and I shall deal with some of them. The paper-based planning system will be retained. The order is an add-on, a complementary measure. It may ultimately replace that system. It is about complementing and using an electronic system for planning when people require it. Indeed, anecdotes not only from Wandsworth, but regarding the take-up of the planning portal suggest that many planning departments want to operate in such a way. However, the order also allows planning departments to get on with streamlining and doing better with their remaining paper-based systems, so there is no cause for fear in that regard. This is merely an option that is added to the existing system. Applicants will not be penalised if they withdraw consent and wish to go down the paper route rather than the e-mail route. We are introducing these provisions because systems have worked. In the electronic world, an attachment might not be easily opened but we need to be able to say that it has been deemed to be accepted without getting back to people, so that deadlines are met: it can be deemed to be accepted because there has been electronic contact. People can go back to the electronic address to sort out the difficulties with the attachment. Such practice does not need to be prescribed. We cannot give an absolute assurance on this, but a system of deeming is used only where people use e-coms themselves, just as a person who uses the post might be deemed to have agreed to the use of the post. It is as simple as that. However, sometimes things are posted more in hope than expectation. Certainty is needed, so the notion of deeming to use is appropriate. However, it is a two-way process. If an applicant subsequently says, ''There was an e-mail Column Number: 010 address on the application and I signed the form, but I would rather stick to paper,'' that will be entirely appropriate and there will be no penalty for that. The change to section 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not require people to use e-coms. It simply adds the option of the electronic route.Article 4 is not compulsory. We have consistently said—albeit in tortuous legalese—that article 4(2) merely adds the option of the e-route to the long list of options for the delivery of service of notices in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The order is essential to help central Government and local government to achieve the target of making all their services available electronically by December 2005. It is not intended to create a brave new world and a paperless system by that date. However, I am not an IT luddite, and I suspect that we will eventually have a completely electronic system, because that is taking over everywhere. I have visited a couple of doctors' surgeries in my constituency that are now completely paper-free, which is astonishing. They scan everything, throw things away and keep things downstairs for the statutory period. That works, and it helps to improve the service that they provide to my constituents. The order improves the existing plan by removing obstacles in the legislation to the effective use of electronic communications and storage in place of paper. It does no more than create the opportunity for those who wish to use an electronic rather than a paper-based system to do so. However, the paper-based system will continue to operate for as long as those engaged in the planning system wish to use it. The order has been welcomed by stakeholders, and its whole thrust is merely facilitative. Mr. Clifton-Brown: That it is merely facilitative is an important point. Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that no proceedings will follow as a result of this statutory instrument unless there is clear evidence by an acknowledgement or other electronic means that an appropriate notice has been received? Mr. McNulty: Given that that is central to the existing planning system and that this is a complementary add-on to it, I can give that assurance. None of the substantive areas of the existing planning system that I have listed, such as notices, will be changed. The order merely introduces the ability to choose the electronic route—it merely introduces the e-enabling of the current system—and subsequent legislative reforms are e-enabled by the catch-all phrase in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I turn to a point that might have been implicit in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We could not wait for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to receive Royal Assent and then carry this out, because the order picks up on myriad elements of planning legislation that are outwith that Bill. We need to e-enable those elements as well as those in that Bill. We need to try to get on with making the system electronic now, rather than delay it, as imagined by the Liberal Democrats. With that in mind, and in the spirit of Column Number: 011 co-operation and consensus that has clearly flooded across the Committee, I commend the order.Mr. Clifton-Brown: I assure the Minister that this will be my last intervention. Is it therefore reasonable for the Committee to assume that all planning Bills and statutory instruments in future will include e-enabling provisions? Mr. McNulty: Certainly, the secondary legislation, circulars and guidance that will flow from what has been described as the Christmas tree element of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will be suitably e-enabled. I accept that it would be rather Column Number: 012 foolish to e-enable the existing system but not e-enable subsequent developments in a planning Bill or elsewhere that will be bolted on to the planning system. The hon. Gentleman's point is entirely fair. I could be facetious and say, if that is not the case, I shall e-mail him.Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at twenty-six minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 20 March 2003 | |
