'In the principal Act in section 102 (Orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works) after subsection (1)(b) in the first place where it occurs for ''may'' there is substituted ''must''.'—[Sir Sydney Chapman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee will be keen to observe that the new clause was to have been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He has asked me to apologise to the Committee because he has a long-standing and important constituency engagement and he begs to give apologies for his absence from this sitting. He accepted the invitation not only before it was known when the Bill would be recommitted, but before it was known that it would be recommitted.

The new clause constitutes an obligation to take enforcement action. I need not rehearse all the arguments because they were dealt with tangentially by the Minister in earlier responses. It is one of those smaller new clauses that has a significant meaning. It refers to section 102 of the principal Act, which is headed:

''Orders requiring discontinuance of use or alteration or removal of buildings or works''.

That section states that if it appears to a local planning authority expedient or in the interest of the proper planning of its area to do so, it may order the discontinuance of the use of a particular piece of land, impose conditions on the use to which it is being put and require steps to be taken for the alteration or removal of the buildings or works where the use of the land is to be discontinued, or if conditions are to be imposed on the continuance of the use of that land. It also refers to the alteration or removal of any buildings or works.

Section 102 includes the words ''they may by order''. The purpose of my hon. Friend's new clause is to change the ''may'' to ''must''. In other words, instead of giving the authority the option and simply permitting it to take action, the new clause would oblige the authority to act.

Whenever one puts forward an amendment or new clause, one likes to act as the devil's advocate to ensure that one does not miss a trick. I suspect that a more jaundiced or cynical person than my hon. Friend might ask what is the difference between an authority being able to order a discontinuance notice if it is expedient to do so in the interests of proper planning and making that obligatory. The problem with making it obligatory is that the authority may find that it is not expedient in the interests of proper planning to serve such a notice. That is a possible lacuna, but the new clause deserves sympathetic consideration. I look forward to the Minister's response.

I, too, express my delight, Mr. Pike, that you are presiding over our proceedings this afternoon.

Currently, local planning authorities have the primary responsibility for taking whatever action may be necessary in the interests of proper planning in their areas. That includes discretion over whether a discontinuance order is issued. Section 102 of the 1990 Act enables a local planning authority to make an order requiring that any use of land shall be discontinued, or continued subject to conditions, or that any buildings or works shall be altered or removed. That provides planning authorities with the flexibility to tailor their approach to each case to fit the nature and circumstances of the case.

Making the power obligatory, which new clause 35 would do—it was ably moved by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman)—would remove that flexibility. It may also bring into play other elements of section 102, such as the compensation arrangements. A duty to implement in all cases, irrespective of the nature and circumstances, would place an additional and unwarranted burden on local authorities.

It is important that local authorities are able to target their resources—we have heard a great deal about resources today—on those cases that are causing most harm. In other words, my answer is about whether we should leave it to the discretion of local authorities to act in the expedient fashion that the hon. Gentleman described or whether we make it obligatory. The argument is about local discretion. I therefore urge him to withdraw the new clause.

I thought that the Minister would use the argument about discretion, but he and, with the greatest respect, my hon. Friend have ignored section 102(1) of the principal Act, which states:

''If, having regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations, it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of the proper planning of their area''.

The local planning authority may consider two large categories of discretion before it must act. I do not see why it should not have to act once it has considered those circumstances. Even when it has acted it may impose conditions, such as having to apply for planning permission, and even when it has done that the Secretary of State must confirm the order, and he might decide to convene an independent hearing to allow everyone to be heard. There is plenty of discretion in the system.

The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, expert and persuasive up to a point. We are very keen that local authorities retain not only the two large areas of discretion to which he alluded, but other thorough-going powers of discretion. We see no compelling grounds for placing obligations on the authorities, which the new clause would do. I urge the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to withdraw the new clause.

I will try to be as brief as possible, but by illustrating the fact that in those exceptional circumstances there are trigger points that enhance the suggestion that we should move for a requirement rather than an option for the local planning authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made a very germane point.

I have listened to the Minister in the sure knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has tabled three further new clauses, which the Minister will find irresistible. I shall therefore show a magnanimous attitude and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.