Staying with clause 6(1), the problem with the clause is that it is drafted on the assumption that the Secretary of State will rubber stamp what is put forward. The fact that only three months are given for approval of what could be 400 plans shows that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State is not to be given any sensible consideration whatever. Let me put it to my hon. Friend that the Bill amounts to a bureaucratic process—I do not think that anyone would deny that it creates a lot of bureaucracy—and does not allow us to deal with an occasion on which a Secretary of State would refuse approval. It provides no mechanism for what happens after a decision is taken under clause 6(1). What happens then? No provision is made for reference back or for revision of the plan; no provision is made for a negotiating process to resolve differences. That amounts to a bureaucratic lacuna in a very bureaucratic Bill.
Sustainable Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Dismore
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 19 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Sustainable Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c1073 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:13:56 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371126
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371126
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_371126