---

Planning Bill

I thought that ““continuously”” was a bit hard on the Secretary of State. My Amendment No. 58 refers to, "““not less frequently than every five years””." That is my bid for certainty. Amendment No. 61 would enable a parliamentary challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision that an amendment to an NPS is not material. Included in the group are my Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 to Clause 11. I become more reluctant, as the years go on, to enter into the may/shall debate, but it seemed to me on this point that if the Secretary of State had gone through all the processes and come to the conclusions that Clause 11(1) predicates, rather than saying that she ““may”” suspend the operation of an NPS, the Bill should say that she should do so, because it is so extreme. That is my first proposed change to Clause 11(2). Amendment No. 89 would enable the Secretary of State to suspend the operation of the part of the NPS that was affected. She should not be at liberty to change some unrelated part. I am sure that that is not intended, but the provision reads as if it might be a possibility.