§
Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) Where an application has been made to the Secretary of State under section 6 above and he considers that any of the objects of the order applied for could be achieved by other means, he may on that ground determine not to make the order (but this subsection is without prejudice to subsection (2) below).'.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]
§ Mr. McLoughlinThat point was raised in Committee. Concern was expressed about a possible flood of applications dealing with matters for which procedures already exist. In particular, some Members feared that unscrupulous applicants might seek to use the new orders to sidestep the established procedures for extinguishing rights of way, where such a proposal was not related to a works matter that belonged to the new procedure. Our proposals were broadly welcomed for that reason.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI am sure that the Minister is aware that the Rights of Way Review Committee and the Ramblers Association are delighted with the amendment. If I had realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was going to speak, I might have expressed my welcome for the measure, but I thought that we were trying to make progress.
§ Mr. McLoughlinThat is why I moved the amendment formally.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. SnapeI beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—
'(5) Where the Secretary of State determining the application has for the time being general responsibility for transport matters he shall, in appropriate circumstances, consult the Secretary of State for the time being having general responsibility for planning matters before doing so.551(6) The circumstances referred to in subsection (5) above relate in particular to the environmental and land use implications of the proposals.'.Where an order was being determined by the Secretary of State for Transport, the amendment would require him to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposal concerned had major environmental or land use implications. The amendment is designed to explore a relatively unclear area in relation to the implementation of part I of the Bill.Many schemes promoted under the Bill's provisions will have major environmental and land use implications. In some cases—for example, light rail schemes—the proposals could well be part of a transport strategy designed to reduce the environmental impact of people's ever-increasing demand to travel. Such schemes undoubtedly have significant local and environmental impact, particularly in terms of noise and vibration, and also have major implications for land-use patterns.
The draft applications and objections procedure rules circulated by the Department of Transport in Committee rightly emphasised the importance of environmental impact statements in ensuring that sensible decisions are made. There is, however, some concern about the extent to which the Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for making decisions on major environmental issues. The purpose of the amendment is to secure clarification of the role of the Secretary of State for the Environment in the decision-making process envisaged in the Bill.
9 pm
As ever, the wording of the Bill itself, with its standard reference to an anonymous Secretary of State, is of no great help. The draft regulations refer to the role of the Secretary of State for Transport but, in parentheses, add the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy. The consultation paper on which the provisions of part I of the Bill are based states:
Decisions on orders which included deemed town planning permission would be made by the Secretary of State for Transport after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment (for projects in England) and the Secretary of State for Wales (for projects in Wales).The consultation document goes on to say that, where other formal ministerial consents were required—for example, listed building consent—a single public inquiry would examine all the issues, and the decision on the order would be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister responsible for the other consent. Thus, if, for example, an application were made for listed building consent as part of an order, the Secretary of State for the Environment would be jointly responsible for deciding whether the order should be confirmed.The Under-Secretary made a similar point in Committee when he said:
Where it is the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for deciding on an application, he will naturally want to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment about the planning implications of a scheme. That Department holds the relevant expertise in that area and it is unthinkable that it would not be consulted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 Janaury 1992; c. 208.]In order to clarify what the Minister said on that occasion, as well as this whole area, it would be extremely helpful if the Under-Secretary were to say in what circumstances the 552 Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for making the decision about an application, and when other Ministers will have primary responsibility.It would be helpful if he were to indicate also in what circumstances the Government envisage decisions being taken jointly by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Are the circumstances confined to those in which listed building consent is involved, as I have already set out?
Finally, in what cases will the Secretary of State for Transport consult the Secretary of State for the Environment, what form will the consultation take, and will the existence and the outcome of consultations be made public?
§ Mr. McLoughlinI have no quarrel with the basic intention behind this amendment, but it is another attempt to introduce on to the face of the Bill rigid procedures that are undesirable and inappropriate. The references throughout the Bill to "Secretary of State" without further identification is deliberate. It is a term that is unlikely to be affected by changes in ministerial responsibilities. It takes into account—as this amendment does not—the fact that the relevant Secretary of State will not always be the Minister in charge of a Department that has general transport responsibilities.
For example, tidal energy barrages will be determined by the Secretary of State for Energy or, in Wales, by the Secretary of State for Wales, and inland waterway schemes by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The term also ignores the planning responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales for developments in Wales. It is within the political memories of most of us—including the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, (Mr. Snape) I am sure —that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment were once the same and that for some years the former did not encompass maritime and aviation matters.
We accept that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales should be consulted about every draft order submitted under clause I or 3 involving planning issues that would be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport or by the Secretary of State for Energy.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettIs the Minister really saying that the Secretaries of State will be interchangeable? If so, is it right to assume that a Secretary of State will not be the Minister to make the decision in respect of a scheme in his own constituency?
§ Mr. McLoughlinThe hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, in government, that sort of situation is well protected. There are very clear guidelines. No Minister —whether a Secretary of State or a junior Minister—would involve himself in matters that directly affected his constituency.
I can give the House an assurance that consultations such as I have referred to would take place. If hon. Members need further evidence of our good intentions, they should be aware, first, that, under the application rules, the local planning authorities will be statutory consultees, and copies of every application, with supporting documents, will have to be deposited with every local authority in whose area the proposed development is situated. Secondly, applicants will have to produce an environmental statement for every scheme 553 except the very smallest, and this will be available for public inspection. If policy issues arise on these documents, it is to the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales that we shall turn for guidance.
With those assurances, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. SnapeI confess to a sense of disappointment. The Under-Secretary congratulates me on the moderation of my amendments or, at least, gives an implicit nod to the moderation with which I move them, yet he says that they are not necessary. If an anonymous Secretary of State is mentioned in the Bill, it is not clear, not only in law but to interested parties who may well be, or wish to be, involved in a local planning inquiry or in direct representations, what Secretary of State is concerned. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept my amendments, he might think about speaking to the parliamentary draftsmen about using the words "the appropriate Secretary of State"— that is, the appropriate Secretary of State depending on the matters before that currently anonymous person.
Once again, in the interests of amity in these proceedings, I beg to ask leave, though somewhat reluctantly on this occasion, to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.