Clause 51 (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Allason
I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 42, line 3, at end insert: 'but the Commission shall not in any case be debarred from considering any alternative site'. The Amendment concerns the Planning Inquiry Commission carrying out an inquiry into a proposed development. It is clear from the wording of the Clause that the Minister may refer to the Commission the question of an alternative site, but the fact that the Minister may cause them to look into the question of an alternative site brings into doubt whether they have the right to do it themselves.
761 We were told in Committee that this was the intention, but it is difficult to read it into the present wording, and it would be better if it were made quite clear. The planning inquiries commissions will be watched with great interest by laymen, who will study their terms of reference and want to know what are their rights and restrictions. The Amendment would have the effect of clearing people's minds of doubt.

§ Mr. MacDermot
In its strict wording and narrow sense, the Amendment is unnecessary. In any event, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would not achieve what he intends, and I would oppose one which did.
A Planning Inquiry Commission will operate in two stages. In the first stage, it will itself carry out an investigation into the issues referred to it and what appear to it to be the relevant issues. That is provided for in subsection (6)(a). It will also hear objections, and that will usually be in the form of a local inquiry, under subsection (6)(b).
Inevitably, where an applicant bases his case in whole or in part on the suitability of a given site and says either that no other site is suitable or that any other site would, for example, be far more expensive, objectors are likely to suggest alternative sites. Once such an issue is raised, the Commission is bound to consider it. If it refrains from dealing with it in its report, there will be possible grounds for quashing the decision because the relevant issues have not been considered. In conducting its proceedings, the Commission will have a general power to consider any alternative sites suggested in those proceedings.
At the other end is the case where, at the time the Minister refers the matter to the Planning Inquiry Commission, he says that he wants it to investigate the possibility of alternative sites. When so charged, it will be for the Commission to investigate whether other sites are equally or more suitable. But we do not think that it is right that the Commission should go beyond what it is charged with doing, namely, considering the suitability of the subject of the application, and of its own initiative investigating alternative sites if that has not been referred to it by the Minister and raised as an issue in the proceedings.
762 When the possibility of alternative sites is included in the reference by the Minister, the Commission must investigate that. If any issue of alternative sites is raised in the proceedings, it has to consider that and, as part of its consideration, may initiate further investigations of its own. But it is not for the Commission itself to go searching round trying to consider whether other sites for which no application has been made would be equally or more suitable.
Against that background, the Amendment is unnecessary. The Commission would not be debarred from considering an alternative site by the nature of the work that it has to do, and there would be no need to write in wording of the kind suggested.
Consideration of this Amendment has made me look again at subsection (6), and I think it probably would be helpful if at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill we were to add after the word "identify" at the beginning of subsection (6)(a) the words "and investigate". This brings out more clearly the difference between the two parts of their work, firstly, where they themselves are investigating, and secondly, where they are considering objections. They would only consider alternative sites in the first part if required to do so by the Minister, and in the second part where the issue was raised.

§ Mr. Allason
The Minister of State has taken exactly the same point I was about to take, which is the first stage of their considerations. I am not certain that the words "and investigate" would do the trick. Supposing they are set to investigate the possibility of the development of Luton Airport. In their first investigations they would refer to identifying and even investigating the desirability of expanding the airport. But at that stage it would not enter their minds, unless the Minister had directed them to consider that there was a need for very considerable expansion of air traffic in that area, that there was the possibility of going elsewhere.
I think it would be very much better if they were free at the first stage, when they identify and investigate, to consider alternative sites rather than wait for the inquiry when somebody gets up and says "We do not want it here—why don't you 763 look at Silverstone?" There is then suddenly the possibility of an alternative site, and the alternative site may turn out to be not Silverstone but somewhere else.
I think it is desirable to make absolutely clear that they can consider alternative sites. The Minister says they can, and I am sure it is better to write it into the Bill.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 42, line 29, at end insert: (7) Any such commission may, with theapproval of the Minister and at his expense, arrange for the carrying out (whether by the commission themselves or by others) of research of any kind appearing to them to be relevant to a matter referred to them for inquiry and report. In this subsection ' the Minister' in relation to any matter affecting both England and Wales, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State acting in either case, by arrangments between the two of them, on behalf of both. The purpose of this Amendment is to equip the Planning Inquiry Commission with power to arrange for the carrying out of research which is relevant to a matter which has been referred to them. It is intended, of course, that these Commissions should be able to investigate in depth matters which are relevant to a decision on planning grounds. This may involve novel technical or scientific considerations and matters which may extend beyond their own expertise.
For the purpose of their investigations, therefore, these kinds of studies or researches may be necessary and they ought to have power to commission them. They will need the consent of the Minister to get approval for the cost involved, and also to make sure that there is no unnecessary duplication by outside private research work of what may already be available from research establishments within the Government.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 42, line 35, leave out subsection (8) and insert: (8) Schedule (Construction of references in sections 51 and 52 to 'the responsible Minister or Ministers') to this Act shall have effect for the construction of references in this section and section 52 below to ' the responsible Minister or Ministers'. 764 This Amendment replaces sub-section (8) of Clause 51 of the Bill by a new sub-section introducing this Schedule, and we hope that the table form of this Schedule will be easier for reference purposes to people who have to use it than trying to plough their way through some rather lengthy provisions as in the Bill. There is only one change of substance— one novel matter—in the new Schedule. This is the entries at l(a) in the Table relating to the position of operational land of statutory undertakers.

§ Mr. Allason
I warmly welcome the tabulation. It makes the matter much clearer. But it could have been even clearer. The fourth column is redundant because it only adds up columns 2 and 3. Column 2 is headed "Affecting England" and column 3 is headed "Affecting Wales". Where a matter affects England and Wales all one needs to do is add up columns 2 and 3 to get the answer.