Letter
to the Chairman of the Business and Enterprise Committee from
Minister for Local Government, 20 May 2008
Planning Bill Parliamentary Scrutiny of National
Policy Statements
I am writing to let you know how we have followed
up the Bill of Rights issue raised by your Clerk, Eve Samson,
in the meeting Harriet Harman held last week, at which Michael
Jack, Phyllis Starkey, Helen Goodman, your Committee Clerks and
officials were also present.
I should say first how much I appreciate the time
and thought that you and your fellow Chairs have devoted to this
important issue. The planning reforms in the Planning Bill are
intended to facilitate our national infrastructure needs. Parliamentary
scrutiny of draft National Policy Statements (NPSs) for the strategic
development of nationally significant infrastructure will be an
opportunity to help to ensure these are well-based. I see it as
an opportunity for Parliament to have a new and important role
in a new system.
The three meetings Harriet has convened, together
with the effort that has gone into preparing for them, have taken
us a long way towards finding an approach that is workable and
effective. I think we have now established a good understanding
of your committees' potential scrutiny role, and what you would
need in terms of liaison with departments working on NPSs to make
the process work as smoothly as possible. We do have the relatively
detailed point outstanding about how time limits would work which
would be useful to try to resolve between officials. I also recognise
the strength of your feeling that Parliament should approve these
new policy statements. While I won't repeat the points I made
last week, we disagree that that is the right way forward.
However, we have been examining urgently the point
that your Clerk, Eve Samson, raised in the meeting, that the approach
I outlined for a new clause in the Bill—that the Secretary
of State would have regard to the views of Parliament and the
Report of the committee—would lead to a significant problem
in relation to Article IX of the Bill of Rights. I am grateful
to Eve for raising this point since our subsequent consultation
with the House authorities, as she suggested, and with Parliamentary
Counsel, have confirmed the risks of such an approach. I am also
grateful to the House authorities for turning round our questions
so quickly.
In light of this, we have revised our approach, and
are tabling amendments and a new clause on the parliamentary process.
This would require the Secretary of State to:
- lay the proposal for a NPS
or amendment of a NPS before Parliament;
- lay a statement before Parliament setting out
his response to any resolution of either House or recommendation
of a committee of the House of Commons concerning the proposal
made within a relevant period, which would be specified;
- lay the final NPS or amended NPS before Parliament
when designated.
I hope you can agree that this is preferable to my
earlier proposal and see merit in this approach and I would be
interested in your thoughts.
I am copying this letter to Harriet Harman, Helen
Goodman, Michael Jack, Phyllis Starkey, and to the Clerk of the
Transport Committee.
John Healey MP
