Schedule
1
References
to local transport
plans
5.45
pm
Question
proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
May I ask the Minister a specific question? What
would be the effect of not including paragraph 8 of schedule 1? Would
it mean that road user charging and workplace parking levies could not
go
ahead?
Ms
Winterton:
I hope not. Perhaps it would help if I started
by explaining a bit of the background to the
schedule.
Schedule 1
will make a series of amendments to the Transport Act 2000 and replace
references to local transport plans in the provisions on buses and road
charging in parts 2 and 3 of the 2000 Act, with reference to local
transport policies. Under each of the existing references to the 2000
Act, a local transport authority’s duty is linked to its local
transport plan. For example, at present, under section 139 of the 2000
Act, an authority must have regard to its local transport plan in
determining what local bus information should be made available to the
public. Similarly, a local authority can have a workplace levy parking
scheme only if it appears desirable in terms of the policies in the
authority’s local transport plan. Also, an authority is able to
spend its revenue from a workplace parking levy or road user charge
only on directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies
in its local transport plan.
We have made these changes
because we think local transport authorities should be able to start
implementing new policies once they have been agreed, rather than
having to wait until those new policies have appeared in a revised and
republished local transport plan. Having said all that, it is important
to recognise that for the revenue that would arise from either a
workplace parking levy or a road user charging scheme to be put into
policies in the local transport plan, it would have had to appear in
the local transport plan in the first
place.
With regard
removing paragraph 8, that paragraph makes only a very small adjustment
to the existing wording. However, that adjustment is necessary to bring
the provision made by paragraph 8 of schedule 12 to the 2000 Act within
the application of the new definition in section 108(5) made under
clause 7(5) of the Bill. I am very impressed with that explanation, as
I hope the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire
is.
Mr.
Knight:
Impressed, yes; supportive, no. I want nothing to
do with anything that facilitates road user charging or workplace
levies.
Question
put, That this schedule be the First schedule to the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes
5.
Division
No.
5
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 16 agreed
to.
Clause
8
Nature
of duty to develop transport
policies
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in
clause 8, page 10, line 31, at
end insert—
‘(c) to have
regard to any relevant plans and strategies published by any relevant
rail infrastructure
manager.’.
The
Committee will have noticed that amendment No. 36 and amendments Nos.
38 and 39 in clause 9, which I think we will have a chance to discuss
later on, are very
similar.
Just
prior to lunch, the Minister was asking exactly how we formulated the
amendments and how much outside help we had received. I have to
acknowledge that here we are grateful for the briefing from Network
Rail. Only on these amendments and on one other group have we received
significant help and not managed to formulate the proposals ourselves.
The purpose of these measures is to ensure that when developing
transport plans and policies, local authorities have regard to the
policies and plans of those charged with operating the rail
network.
The
concept is fairly simple. A significant proportion of travelling is
done by rail—people and goods, travelling in and out and through
local areas, and within local areas, by train. The rail network
transcends local authority borders and in a number of examples is not
operated and managed by local transport authorities. However, at the
beginning and end of train journeys, users obviously rely on transport
services put on within and by the local authority. Those services are
partially governed by plans, so that represents integration. The new
integrated transport authorities, which I will come on to, will have an
obligation to consider integration across all modes of transport. It
makes sense, therefore, that local transport authorities should
consider that as well.
The amendment would ensure that
local transport authorities had “regard to” the plans and
strategies provided by any rail infrastructure manager. My
understanding and reading is that “rail infrastructure
manager” also covers operators. The amendment would place an
obligation to consult or have regard; no duty would be placed in
respect of developing the whole plan or policy, or to put into the plan
what the rail network told them to include. I do not see the duty to
consult and to have regard as an onerous burden on local authorities;
it is a question of
consultation.
I
believe that “relevant rail infrastructure manager” is
the right definition. It is defined in statutory instrument No.
599—the Railways and Other Guided
Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006—which covers Network
Rail, train operating companies, both passengers and freight. The amendment
refers to “relevant plans and strategies”. I mean that
and I think that most people’s common understanding of it means
Network Rail’s route plans and utilisation strategy. Those set
out current capacity, passenger and freight demand, passenger and
freight demand trends, operational performance cost and projections as
to how the future requirements of rail users and funders should be met.
Therefore, those rail utilisation strategies should inform the thinking
and the consultation
process.
Graham
Stringer:
I am listening to the hon.
Gentleman and I would be grateful if he explained further what
“have regard to” means. I am not playing games with the
previous questions to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman seems to be
saying that, in all circumstances, Network Rail’s policies will
have priority over local integrated transport authorities. If that is
what he is saying and that is the definition he is using, I would be
grateful if was
explicit.
Stephen
Hammond:
No, that is not the definition,
nor do I understand the normal legal definition of “have regard
to” to imply that either. As I said a moment ago, there is an
obligation in the Bill on integrated transport authorities to consider
integration across all modes of transport, but the amendment provides
for an obligation on local transport authorities as
well.
I
am happy to accept the Minister’s correction as to exactly what
“have regard to” means—my understanding and, I
guess, the common parlance and common-sense version is that, after
consulting, those involved must at least listen to what was said. If
they then choose to ignore what was said to them, that is satisfactory,
because they have consulted and had regard to it. I understand that to
be the normal meaning of what is put in Bills, but I am happy to be
corrected.
Before
taking that intervention, I said that rail utilisation strategies are
the basis on which Network Rail operates its consultation with local
authorities and stakeholders—a formal review process. The
amendment would make that process work both ways: just as Network Rail
consults local authorities on rail utilisation strategies, so the
authorities, when they put their local transport policy plans together,
should consult Network
Rail.
I understand why
I am in the wrong, but I also understand that the Government might
intend to produce some guidance to local authorities on whom exactly
they should consult in the formulation of their local transport plans.
I am looking for the Minister to update us on that and to give us more
guidance.
It
seems to me that local authorities and local people know their areas
better, although some local decisions have to be taken in a national
and regional context. It is the rail network that needs such context.
My amendment would put the appropriate requirement on local
authorities—they should consult and “have regard
to” the response that they receive from the “rail
infrastructure manager”, which covers both Network Rail and the
operators, as well as the demands of both freight and
passengers.
Norman
Baker:
I shall be brief. I rise to
support the amendment. We have the renaming of passenger transport
executives as integrated transport authorities. We have bus strategies
being abolished. Quite clearly, the intention of the
Government—sensibly—is to integrate rail and bus. How
could it be anything other than sensible to accept the amendment tabled
by the hon. Member for
Wimbledon?
Ms
Winterton:
When drawing up integrated transport plans,
which is what we want authorities to do, I know how important it is to
look across the different modes of transport in an area. One of the
points made by many of us as to why we want to take greater powers for
local authorities is that people get infuriated when they arrive by
train only to find that the bus left five minutes previously. I am sure
that, for many of us, that is a constant refrain from our
constituencies. We certainly believe that it is important to take a
truly integrated approach in local transport
plans.
6
pm
The amendment
tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would put in place specific
statutory requirements for transport authorities to consider future
relevant rail schemes in their transport policies and plans.
Consultation is already an integral part of the development of the
local transport plan process. Local transport authorities consult
bodies, including Network Rail. That level of detailed consultation is
seen as vital in developing future transport policies. Similarly,
Network Rail consults local authorities extensively in the development
of its route utilisation strategies—as the hon. Gentleman
mentioned.
Clause
9 requires local transport authorities to consult about local transport
plans, but the only consultees specified are certain other local
authorities and the Secretary of State. The clause also states that
local transport authorities must consult “such other
persons” as they consider appropriate. With a few exceptions,
under the Bill local transport authorities themselves will decide on
which individual organisations to consult and in many cases that will
include rail infrastructure managers, as we call them. Indeed, many
other important and relevant local, regional and national strategies
could be produced by other
organisations.
I am
thinking of examples such as integrated regional strategies and, in
some cases, local crime and disorder reduction strategies, which could
be very relevant to local transport plans. When considering the
amendment, it is important that consultation between local transport
authorities and Network Rail works in both directions. A specific duty
on local transport authorities to have regard to Network Rail’s
plans and strategies without a corresponding duty on Network Rail would
work in only one direction.
Stephen
Hammond:
As I explained, there is a duty on Network Rail
to have such regard in its rail utilisation strategies. It is doing
what the Minister wants it to do, which is to work both
ways.
Ms
Winterton:
Rail utilisation strategies
can be quite different from the future rail management schemes to which
the hon. Gentleman referred. However, the
Government intend to develop guidance for local transport authorities in
the preparation of the next round of local transport plans. The matters
that local transport authorities would need to consider when drawing up
their plans, including rail strategy and proposals, could be covered by
the guidance. Because of my point that there could be other people and
authorities that it might be necessary to consult, we do not want to
pick out in the Bill particular bodies such as Network Rail, as opposed
to other integrated regional strategies or crime and disorder
partnerships that might be equally relevant when drawing up a plan. I
assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we shall be making sure that
it is clear in guidance that that is exactly the sort of body that
local authorities should consult. In the light of my reassurance, I
hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Minister has defended her position, but she
did not address some of the points raised by the amendment. One of the
reasons why the amendment is important is that rail infrastructure is
trans-local, regional and national in nature. As I explained in my
opening remarks, a key point is that the amendment would place exactly
the same burden on local authorities as National Rail has at
present.
The Minister
said that local transport plans will need to consider the future
whereas route utilisation strategies do not, but that is exactly what
they do. She also said that she expected that local authorities would
include people in their consultation process. There was not a
categorical “must”. To rehearse our arguments about
consultation this morning during our debate on clause 3, if the right
hon. Lady tells me that on Report she wants to add the other people to
the statutory consultation, I should be relatively happy to leave
things unambiguous, but I am not sure that the people whom she
mentioned were in any way as relevant as the rail infrastructure
manager or the rail operator. As she rightly said, local authorities
will need to take some regard of such people when we want to integrate
bus and rail services.
Ms
Winterton:
I have some difficulty with the hon.
Gentleman’s point about other bodies not being as relevant as
Network Rail. Many of the other bodies could be very relevant in
drawing up transport plans. I am prepared to consider the other bodies
that it might be necessary to bring in if a duty were introduced in
terms of Network Rail. I shall not commit to bring anything back, but I
am prepared to consider which other bodies might be brought in and
whether it would be unrealistic to try to define them in
legislation.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that,
but she is including only what she thinks is necessary. In essence, she
is saying that she thinks those bodies are important—they may or
may not be—but that they are already covered by provisions in
the Bill. In that reassurance, she is telling me only that if I press
the amendment to a vote, she may be prepared to put the things that she
thinks are important into the Bill. That gives me no guarantee about
the particular person whom I think needs to be consulted in order for
there to be a proper consultation process, or that local authorities
will get their transport plans by speaking to the rail infrastructure
manager.
Even with the
Minister’s assurances, I am not reassured, and I intend to test
the will of the
Committee.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
6
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Mr.
Knight:
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
clause 8, page 10, line 33, at
end add—
‘(2ZD) Where, due
to exceptional local circumstances, a local transport authority wishes
to implement policies which are in whole or in part at variance with
the duties mentioned in subsection (2ZB) they shall be entitled to
proceed without regard to the guidelines after issuing a public
statement of “special local circumstances” setting out
the factors which the local transport authority regard as being of
sufficient importance to override the duties mentioned in subsection
(2ZB).’.
I
am well aware of the political maxim, “The later the hour, you
don’t win arguments, you lose friends,” so my remarks
will be somewhat shorter than they would have been had I been called a
couple of hours ago. The amendment is reasonable, and I hope that it
appeals to reasonable opinion across the Committee. It almost speaks
for itself but I shall make a number of points about why I think it
should be added to the Bill.
In effect, the amendment would
alter clause 8 by giving a local authority in exceptional local
circumstances the right to deviate and not to abide by the duties in
(2ZB). Clause 8
states:
“Each
local transport authority whose area is in England must...in
developing policies in accordance with subsection 1(a), and...in
carrying out their functions in accordance with subsection (1)(b),
comply with the duties set out in subsection in
(2ZB).”
Those duties are
to
“take into account
any policies announced by Her Majesty’s Government with respect
to the protection or improvement of the environment, and...to have
regard to any guidance issued for the purposes of this paragraph by the
Secretary of State”.
It
is not a wrecking amendment. It says that in exceptional local
circumstances, where the transport authority feels that there is a good
reason to deviate from the national guidelines set out by the Secretary
of State, it would be able to do so, but only after making a
declaration in those terms. As I understand it, that declaration would
be open to legal challenge if it was made frivolously.
[
Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Derby, North
wish me to give way, or was he just drinking
water?
Mr.
Bob Laxton (Derby, North) (Lab): I am trying to drink
water if I can get the top off the bottle.
The
Chairman:
Mr.
Knight.
Mr.
Knight:
I thought that I was being hailed, Lady
Winterton.
May I give
the Committee an example? It is not beyond the realms of possibility
that at some point the Government may say that each town and city
should have a low emission zone, and that cars that cannot comply with
a certain level of emissions should either be banned from entering the
city centre or the owner should face a charge. Let me take the
Committee back a few years when the town of Corby depended almost
exclusively on its steelworks. When the steelworks collapsed, not only
did the majority of employed people in that town lose their job, they
also faced immediate negative equity. One could purchase a freehold
house in Corby at the time of the collapse for £1,000. Imagine
if a similar tragedy happened to a local community and the Government
said that a low emission zone must come in and everyone who had an
older car suddenly found that they could not go into the city centre or
that they had to pay an additional fee. That would be a huge blow to
people who had already been kicked in the teeth by losing their job and
having negative equity in their property.
In those
circumstances, the local council might say, “For the moment we
have exceptional local circumstances and we do not wish to impose this
particular policy.” I defy anyone to say that that would be an
unreasonable decision in such circumstances. The key word in the
amendment is “exceptional”. I hope that the Minister can
see the sense of saying that where a local issue is so important that
it is regarded as exceptional by the local transport authority, the
authority should be allowed, in those circumstances, to deviate from
guidance that would otherwise be regarded as quite acceptable and the
norm. All my amendment seeks to do is to make that provision clear in
the
Bill.
Ms
Winterton:
The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment
illustrates some of the controversial issues around environmental
policies. I am not sure whether he is supported by his Front-Bench
colleagues. The Government fear that the amendment would undermine the
steps that we want local authorities to take to contribute towards
improving our
environment.
6.15
pm
The
amendment would enable a local authority to develop and implement
policies that could ignore Government policy and guidance on the
protection and improvement of the environment where it considers that
“exceptional local circumstances” applied, without any
real reference to what those circumstances might be. As a Government,
we are aware of the need for individual local authorities to take local
factors into account in drawing up and implementing their transport
policies. That is at the heart of our approach, whether those policies
concern tackling congestion, providing high quality bus services or
addressing environmental issues.
There is
absolutely no problem in saying that individual circumstances will
prevail, but at the same time, we are all aware of the need to protect
the environment and to address climate change. That is why the Bill
allows the
Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on fulfilling
the new environmental duty introduced by clause 8. Interestingly, the
Committee has just divided, with the two opposition parties wanting a
greater emphasis and direct reference to the environment in the Bill.
The amendment would undermine what is happening in the Bill and what we
are trying to do.
Graham
Stringer:
Protection of the environment is important. When
I first read the amendment I thought that it was otiose. Whether it is
necessary or not depends on how we define “taking into
account” and “having regard”. I would be grateful
if the Minister could expand on that, because the way in which she is
developing her arguments seems to be to interpret “taking into
account” and “having regard” as having to follow
the Government’s policy, even if it is detrimental to the
area.
Ms
Winterton:
What we mean by “have regard to”
or to “take account of” an obligation is first, to give
attention to the matter to which the duty applies; secondly, to
consider the contents of that matter in relation to the proposal or
plans under consideration; and thirdly, to adjust those proposals or
plans to take into account the additional information provided or to
determine that no such adjustment need be made.
In terms of
the Bill allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local
authorities on fulfilling the new environmental duty introduced by
clause 8, we want to see such guidance cover issues such as air
quality, noise and climate change. Local authorities would need to
address those in devising and implementing their transport policies and
local transport plan and show how their local authorities will take
local factors into account. That is a sensible approach and it gives
authorities flexibility to reflect local circumstances without
undermining the importance of addressing the sorts of environmental
issues that I have already mentioned. In contrast, the amendment does
not explain what exceptional local circumstances—something that
the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire thinks could justify an
authority taking a different approach—might be. We believe that
it would leave a large loophole so that an authority could bury its
head in the sand were it minded to do so, and implement policies that
take little or no account of the importance of the environment or of
addressing climate change.
Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): Can
we be very clear about this, before we decide on the merits or
otherwise of the amendment? Is the Minister’s case that, in the
circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for East
Yorkshire, which could be described as exceptional, it would be proper
for a local authority to say that it has had regard to the Secretary of
State’s guidance, but has decided not to implement it because of
exceptional circumstances? If that is the Minister’s case, the
amendment may not be necessary. However, following on from the remarks
of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, it would be helpful if the
Minister could be clear that that is what she is
saying.
Ms
Winterton:
The difficulty is that the amendment is not
clear. We want to see local flexibility within the transport plans of
local authorities, but we also want it
to be clear that we expect local authorities to take action. The problem
with the amendment is that it does not say what those exceptional local
circumstances would be, so it is difficult for Parliament to send a
message about that. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned
the closure of a steel plant. Such things are is difficult to
anticipate. The right hon. Gentleman clearly wants to provide a way for
local authorities not to have to implement some of these environmental
policies. We believe that it is important that Government and
Parliament send a message that such policies should be taken very
seriously.
Mr.
Knight:
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way.
May I refer her back to her own legal advice, which she quoted to the
Committee earlier today? In the absence of any definition, the word
“exceptional” means what we all think it
means.
Ms
Winterton:
That is the problem with it
being entirely within the legislation. Earlier we talked about the
definition of “the economy”. When I looked at the
lawyers’ interpretation, that is something that means what it
would mean in normal parlance. However, something like
“exceptional circumstances” is incredibly vague, and
exceptional circumstances for one authority might be entirely different
for another.
Ms
Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): In
support of my right hon. Friend’s case, that defining
“exceptional circumstances” is very difficult and is not
defined in the amendment, I refer to the example given by the right
hon. Member for East Yorkshire. Sheffield suffered large job losses due
to the closure of steel plants back in the early 1980s—no
thanks, let me add, to the policies of the Conservative party when it
was in power. In fact, the impact on car ownership would have been very
low at that time because many of the steelworkers would not have owned
cars. The lowest levels of car ownership in Sheffield were in the
steelworking areas. The variations according to local circumstances
would have benefited the citizens of the south-west of the city where
levels of car ownership were high and where job losses were at a
minimum. In fact, I do not think that the example works to justify the
amendment.
Ms
Winterton:
My hon. Friend is right. One of the
difficulties in interpreting the precise meaning of proposed new
section (2ZD) is that it is incredibly ambiguous. It could either be
interpreted as meaning that provisions or guidance can be ignored or
that the guidance as a whole can be ignored. Frankly, neither of those
would be desirable. We want local authorities to take into account the
policies and have regard to the guidance, but we then want them to make
up their own mind about how to take policies forward in terms of the
actions that they would take.
Stephen
Hammond:
The only trouble with the argument of the hon.
Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough is that my right hon. Friend the
Member for East Yorkshire was talking about a circumstance in another
city. Therefore, one cannot suddenly compare one with the other. If
there is the lowest level of car ownership in an area, one
could say that that would not be exceptional circumstances under the
conventional meaning of the word “exceptional”. The
Minister is wriggling around in relation to what is a common parlance
view of the word “exceptional”. As the Minister said
about the meaning of “economic”, most people would have
little problem with the meaning of “exceptional”. The
Minister is wriggling around on that
point.
One thing that
I would like my right hon. Friend to clarify relates to the Minister
making the whole of the special local circumstances seem as if they
would be used in a completely anti-environmental way. There is nothing
in what my right hon. Friend has said that could be taken to be
anti-environmental, unless one chooses to read it in that
way.
Ms
Winterton:
The hon. Gentleman is being a bit naive in that
respect because it is perfectly obvious from the amendment that the
idea is to make it easier for local authorities to say that they do not
want to implement the measure. Frankly, I see the amendment as a way of
creating a loophole to enable local authorities to simply not carry out
environmental policies, if they feel like being a bit
difficult.
Stephen
Hammond:
Is the Minister not being naive in saying that
there is not a common-sense definition of the word
“exceptional”?
Ms
Winterton:
I hardly think that that is the point. We are
talking about putting together “exceptional
circumstances” without any definition of what that would be. If
the hon. Gentleman were to try to draw up what all the exceptional
circumstances could be, it would be
impossible.
Stephen
Hammond:
When we went through this whole argument less
than an hour ago, the Minister tried to tell us that there was a
common-sense definition of the word “economic” and I said
clearly to her that there was not because there is a wide-ranging
interpretation of the word. The Minister is now trying to tell me that
there is a wide-ranging interpretation of the word
“exceptional”. The Minister is trying to have it both
ways; she cannot have it both ways. If she accepted the earlier
proposition, she should accept my
proposition.
Ms
Winterton:
I could say the same the other way around. If
the hon. Gentleman does not think that there is an interpretation of
the word “economy” that most people would understand, how
on earth does he think that there is an accepted interpretation of
“exceptional local circumstances”. As he has said, that
is a whole phrase that covers a range of different circumstances. I
believe that the Conservative party is coming out in its true colours.
It does not want to see those environmental measures being taken, and
that is the point of its
amendment.
6.30
pm
Mr.
Knight:
Someone said of something else, “I
can’t tell you what it is but, when you see it, you will know
it.” That is the common-sense approach to the word
“exceptional”—not mundane, not
everyday.
Mr.
Laxton:
We all clearly understand the meaning of
“exceptional”. The case of Corby that was cited by the
right hon. Member for East Yorkshire was an exceptional set of
circumstances. It was so exceptional, in fact, that I hope that it
never occurs again. Let us look back slightly at its history. It was
during a period of an extremely right-wing ideological Government. They
were absolutely exceptional and I hope that they will not return
again.
The
Chairman:
Order. I think that an intervention has to be
exceptionally
short.
Mr.
Knight:
I take the point made by the hon. Member for
Derby, North. I wish to say in passing that, at the time, I represented
his seat and he was a member of the local
council.
There is no
intention in the amendment to allow any local authority—to quote
the Minister—just to ignore Government policies on the
environment. Had that been the intention, I would not have used the
words “exceptional local circumstances”. I would have
said something like, “where the local transport authority thinks
fit”. In other words, no restriction would be placed on its
judgment. The amendment makes it clear that exceptional local
circumstances have to exist for a policy that deviates in part from
what the right hon. Lady set out in national guidelines to be
implemented. She is perhaps deliberately misrepresenting what the
amendment seeks to do. [
Interruption.
] Okay, I
will rephrase that. In my view, the right hon. Lady has not given an
accurate description to the Committee of the effects of the amendment.
It is circumscribed by the word
“exceptional”.
Jeremy
Wright:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could
resolve the argument quickly if the Minister would say unequivocally
that “having regard” to guidance may mean that a
particular local authority can look at such guidance from the Secretary
of State,
but conclude that, in particular local circumstances, it should not be
implemented? If that were the case, my right hon. Friend might consider
that his amendment was not
necessary.
Mr.
Knight:
I wholeheartedly accept what my hon. Friend says.
I invite the Minister to intervene. If she is saying that, if the Bill
becomes law, it would be possible for a local authority to deviate when
it had grounds to do so, of course I would conclude that my amendment
was probably otiose and not push it
further.
Ms
Winterton:
Perhaps I could help the right hon. Gentleman
by clarifying that matters would always depend on the circumstances of
a particular case. It could be legitimate for an authority to
“have regard to” as he suggests, but that is not the same
as “must comply with”. An authority must always make up
its own mind. To blindly follow guidance, whatever it was, would be for
the authority unlawfully to fetter its discretion. Of course, it has
discretion, but that is entirely different from setting out a whole
range of vague exceptional local circumstances that an authority could
just decide would apply to its situation. We have taken the exactly
right approach. Of course, there is local discretion, but there is
guidance to which we want authorities to have
regard.
Mr.
Knight:
I welcome those words but, if the Minister had put
them on the record several minutes ago, the debate would not have been
as long. On the basis of her assurance that such matters could be
legitimate and that there will be local discretion, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Watts.]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Seven o’clock till
Thursday 24 April at Nine
o’clock.
| 
