House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Feb 1992

Mr. Simon Hughes : I do not want to enter a party political debate. However, local authorities may or may not do a good job--they are not normally representative due to the electoral system, but we cannot do anything about that. Members of all parties, including Liberal Democrats, make the perfectly valid argument that community groups and voluntary sector groups should be able to speak separately from the local authorities, as they may have different interests.

Mr. McLoughlin : Amendment No. 115 states :

"any community or environmental group which is representative of any local authority area in which works authorised by the proposed order are to be carried out".

I have to go by what the amendment states, not by what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey may have meant it to mean. Earlier, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) say that he understood why the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wished to divorce his remarks from those of Tower Hamlets council--I can understand that.

Amendment No. 118 seeks a role for community groups for vetting the appointment of inspectors. That is absolute madness and clearly wrong. It is of the utmost importance to uphold the impartiality of inspectors. Inquiries have to be fair, and be seen to be fair, by all those involved, including the promoters. That position could not be sustained if appointments were subject to the approval of specific groups on one side of the argument or the other.

Inspectors are chosen for their experience in dealing with the subject matter and their availability. I know of no instance where the selection of inspectors has been controversial. The hon. Gentleman will next be saying that the prosecution should have a vetting right over a judge in a court case. I do not think that his suggestion stands up to scrutiny, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes : I shall take the last point first. The Minister chose the wrong analogy. In a court, the defendant has the right to challenge members of the jury, who are the people who make the decision.

Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Irvine Patnick) : It is not the jury.

Column 544

Mr. Hughes : No, that is the fallacy. The Whip is making a fallacious point. It is not the judge who makes the decision, but the jury, who can be challenged. The defendant has to put up with whichever magistrate he or she is given. However, I am trying to find the best system for planning inquiries.

On the Minister's rejection of my point about community groups, he either does not understand or does not want to understand that a local authority interest is often different from the interests of those who are representative of an area that is smaller than that of the local authority. In authorities with thousands of residents--for example, Tower Hamlets or Southwark--all the residents will not necessarily have the same view. Those living around Southwark cathedral, or Rotherhithe, or Surrey docks, or Bow or Poplar will not necessarily have the same views.

The Minister has put his case clearly. If the Government hold to that view, the community and voluntary sectors will study their policies with interest. I think that they will become much more sympathetic to the Opposition's argument on the future of the planning system and will react adversely to the Conservative view. The Minister said that the Government are not willing to fund people who otherwise might find it difficult to raise the money. It may or may not be cheaper to take time off work to attend and prepare for a public inquiry than to take time off to prepare for a Committee in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. I do not necessarily think that it would be. The same expenses are generally incurred. Lay people often have to battle against lawyers, and the process is unfair.

It is typical of all parts of the Tory Government to want to preserve the status quo that is to the advantage of those who are well-off, with resources, and to the disadvantage of those who are less well-off and who do not have resources. I leave it to those who read the debate and are interested in the subject to decide. As always, the Tory party is never willing to look at ways of making the system fairer, when given such a golden opportunity to do so.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I wish to say something about the hon. Gentleman's speech before he goes back to watching television, or whatever he was doing before the debate.

My experience of reading inspectors' reports is that inspectors are often affected by what ordinary people say on their own behalf, which is a good sign of confidence in the system. Inspectors prove far more challenging opponents of those who are professionally represented, and often gain modifications in the proposals of public authorities. One person, without much experience of appearing before public inquiries, can come and say what their interest is and what they would consider a better proposal. Sometimes, people want to build bridges worth half a million pounds so that a farmer's divided land can be united, or want to move part of the Dartford -Thurrock bridge, or make some other adaptation because of the location of someone's house. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make partisan points and betray the fact that he thinks that there will soon be an election. The Bill is designed to make life easier for ordinary people. If people read the report of the debate, I hope that they will have the confidence to make objections or put their argument at any form of hearing, and find that they are well represented and receive a good hearing.

Column 545

Mr. Cryer : It would be a good idea to study amendment No. 114 to see whether it is possible to provide for minimal costs for people appearing before the Minister or an inquiry. I realise that there could be a problem, as other similar inquiries could then be said to justify such expenditure. However, it is worth keeping that point in mind when considering the procedure.

I do not agree that various groups should vet the inspector. That would prompt accusations of partiality if the inspector were to be approved by one side. The other side might well argue that, as the inspector had been approved by side A, he or she must be opposed to side B.

There was a great argument over the proposed Aire valley trunk road, when, as a matter of course, the inspector was appointed by the Department of Transport. As a matter of routine, inspectors come from the Department, but people simply did not trust the inspector. That was not because he had exhibited prejudice, but because he came from the Department promoting the proposed trunk road.

I believe that, as a result of that outcry, which occurred in 1978, inspectors are now appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department so that they have an impartial status. I think that the Minister may well confirm that. If that is not true of the Department of Transport, it should be. People are anxious to ensure that the inspector is not identified with the Department--a valid point.

In 1978 the Department of the Environment of the Labour Government separated the inspectors from the Department as a result of pressure from a local inquiry to which there was bitter opposition. The inquiry was felt to be so prejudiced that it was broken up. When the inspector tried to keep members of the public out of the room, doors were knocked down and the public simply burst in.

That background is relevant to the Bill, as nobody has been appointed under the new legislation. The Minister should ensure, in the limited time left available to him, that inspectors are appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department so that they are seen to be independent, not as appointees who are subordinate to the Minister's Department.

Mr. McLoughlin : In a trunk road inquiry, the inspectorate is appointed by a panel approved by the Lord Chancellor. For planning inquiries covered by the Bill, inspectors would be chosen from a planning body. In that respect, it is separate from the Department. Amendment negatived.

Mr. Snape : I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 6, line 25, after shall', insert without unreasonable delay'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments : No. 67, in clause 13, page 7, line 38, after shall', insert without unreasonable delay'.

No. 68, in clause 13, page 7, line 49, at end insert--

(2A) If, in the case of an application for the purposes of which an inquiry or hearing is held, the Secretary of State has not given notice of his determination under section 13(1) above before the end of the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which the inquiry or hearing is closed, he shall, if requested to do so by any person to whom notice of the determination must be given under section 14(1) below, specify the date on or before which he expects to give notice of his determination.'.

Column 546

Mr. Snape : The amendments address the important question of the time scales that are likely to be involved in the determination of an order submitted under the provisions of part I of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 require the Secretary of State to act without unreasonable delay in exercising his powers in relation to requiring a public local inquiry to be held and in reaching a final decision on an order. Amendment No. 68 provides an applicant for an order with the right to demand an indication from the Secretary of State of when he expects to make a decision if the Secretary of State has not done so within nine months of the completion of the inquiry. The matter of time scales for the determination of such orders was discussed in Committee, and in response to amendments the Under- Secretary said :

"I have concluded that this matter is not suitable for statutory attention. However, I am prepared to consider the publication of guidelines relating to time scales for determining orders But the Secretary of State could not be bound by them".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 January 1992 ; c. 205.]

There is considerable support for the publication of guidelines from groups with an interest in this part of the Bill, and they include the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Passenger Transport Executive group. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he has reached a conclusion on the subject of guidelines.

However, there are serious concerns that guidelines alone will not be enough. The amendments are designed to give added weight to the need to avoid unnecessary delays in the decision-making process without creating problems for the Secretary of State which the Under-Secretary of State argued would arise from the amendments that we considered in Committee.

There are a number of important factors behind the concern of the promoting authorities. Private sector contributions towards the cost of, for example, light rail schemes are increasingly important, particularly in view of Government policies. An applicant for an order would normally seek to have private funding guaranteed before starting the costly exercise of applying for an order. It is essential that private investors know the extent of their commitment, not only in terms of cost, but in terms of how long the commitment would last. Without the certainty of knowing when a decision would be made, it would be difficult to persuade an investor to make a financial commitment in the first place.

The second important reason relates to the changes in relation to blighted property introduced by the Bill. Under the current private Bill procedures and planning procedures, property is blighted only when the Bill is enacted or planning permission is granted. It is recognised that this can cause unfairness, and the Bill provides that land is blighted once an application for an order has been made. This change will impose a considerable financial burden on promoting authorities, such as passenger transport executives, which may have to buy blighted properties long before a decision on an application is made. Speedy decision-making is essential if the financial implications of this change are to be kept to a minimum.

The concern about the timetable for decision making on orders under this Bill is in part a result of authorities' experience with highway orders. A case in Barnsley illustrates the problem.

Mr. Patnick : That is well off beam.

Mr. Snape : It may be, but it is not far from Sheffield.

Column 547

Barnsley authority submitted to the Department orders in relation to a road scheme in the borough. What is known as a side roads order was submitted to the Department on 15 July 1991, followed by a compulsory purchase order on 30 September 1991. The last dates for objections to the orders were 9 September and 7 October 1991 respectively. There are a small number of outstanding objections to the orders, and the authority is currently negotiating with those concerned with a view to enabling the objections to be removed. On 25 November 1991-- four months after the first order was submitted--Barnsley borough council received a letter from the Department of Transport raising a number of points of concern about the content and drafting of the orders. The authority replied to these points on 10 December. As of the end of last month, the authority has still received no indication from the Department as to when an inquiry can be held. That was the unsatisfactory position almost six months after the first order had been submitted. This case clearly illustrates the need for these amendments, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will revert to his earlier, more conciliatory, self when he replies.

Mr. Moate : In Committee, I moved an amendment requiring quite precise time limits. It was unsuccessful, but I was grateful to the Under- Secretary, who was fairly helpful, responsive and understanding. I am not in the habit of accusing the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) of being moderate or reasonable, but in this instance his amendments are reasonable and moderate. Essentially, the amendments propose that there should not be any unreasonable delay. That is hardly a great imposition on Departments. I suspect that the Minister agrees that it is reasonable for Departments to be subjected to some sort of discipline. I think he said that he could not accept a precise timetable, but that he would accept the logic of guidelines or target dates.

8.45 pm

One understands the difficulty of placing precise guidelines upon the way that Departments deal with planning applications. Some of them can be immensely complex and difficult and one can see all sorts of legal snares if one tries to apply rigid rules. However, the public, and especially applicants and promoters of schemes, are entitled to speedy replies and to some certainty or some understanding of how long it will take so that they can judge the viability of a project and decide whether it should be backed. I fully understand why the Minister is logically and sensibly constrained by the whole planning ethos in the Department of the Environment as well as in the Department of Transport. Fundamentally, we are on the right lines, and I hope that we shall emerge from this debate and others with more sensible disciplines and constraints upon local authorities and upon the way in which Ministers and civil servants deal with such matters. I hope that the Minister will be helpful.

Mr. McLoughlin : I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for the way in which he moved the amendments and to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for the constructive part that he played in Committee. I have no doubt that the amendments are well intentioned. [Interruption.] I hope

Column 548

that no one will prejudge my speech. I cannot comment in detail on the Barnsley case to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East referred, but I shall write to him next week and I shall look into the matter of the delay. It is difficult to comment on a case about which one has not been forewarned.

Mr. Cryer : Will the Minister write without unreasonable delay?

Mr. McLoughlin : I will reply in a reasonable time, and that means before next Thursday.

Amendment No. 66 would require the Secretary of State to cause an inquiry to be held without unreasonable delay. Aside from the difficulty of applying appropriate sanctions where the Secretary of State did cause unreasonable delay, the amendment overlooks the fact that the inquiry rules to be made under powers conferred in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 will contain a pre-inquiry timetable within which the Secretary of State would be expected to work. In practice, the timing of the inquiry is likely to be a matter for the applicant to decide, taking into account the outcome of any negotiations that he wishes to hold with objectors. I do not think it wise to try to force the Secretary of State to arrange an inquiry earlier than the promoter wishes. He may well want to enter negotiations to try to overcome some of the objectors' concerns. Amendment No. 67 also suffers from the problem of what sanction could helpfully be applied to the Secretary of State if there were unnecessary delay in making or refusing an order following, if necessary, an inquiry or a hearing. As I said in Committee, I am prepared to consider publishing guidelines relating to timetables for determining orders, I suggest that they would be of more practical value than the rather imprecise wording proposed in the amendment. I am prepared to go a little further, and say that we shall almost certainly publish such guidelines ; but flexibility will be needed. Amendment No. 68 has several drawbacks. It appears to be based on the assumption that, by the end of nine months from the conclusion of an inquiry, the Secretary of State would have at least received the inspector's report. That may not be the case, because the inquiry may have been long and complex, and the inspector is likely to require double the length of the inquiry to produce his report. To require the Secretary of State to specify the date on which he expects to give notice of his decision on the order in circumstances when he cannot be sure when the inspector's report will be received, or what it will contain, would be meaningless.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Is the Minister really suggesting that a large number of inquiries will take more than nine months to be completed? If that is so, and if it is likely to take 18 months for the Secretary of State to receive the inspector's report, a long period of blight is probable.

Mr. McLoughlin : I am not saying that ; I am saying that that might happen in some cases, and that specifying a figure in the Bill would lead to serious dangers and difficulties. I sincerely hope that the inquiries will not take as long as that. I realise that the aim is to do away with the private Bill procedure, but I must say that, if a nine-month moratorium were imposed on private Bills, the hon.

Column 549

Gentleman would probably succeed in stopping almost every private Bill from reaching the House for quite some time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : We do have at least a 12-month block. The amendment merely requires the Secretary of State to give reasons if the process lasts longer than nine months. Normally, if a parliamentary Session lasts for 12 months, a carry-over motion is necessary ; and, in a sense, that is the purpose of such a motion--to explain why such a long time has been taken.

Mr. McLoughlin : I accept that, but in such circumstances the Secretary of State would probably specifiy in the order a date several months ahead, to avoid being criticised for failing to meet the date. That would be of no help to anyone. Finally, if the Secretary of State specified a date and that date was missed, what sanction would apply?

A general comment on enforcement may help the House. If the Secretary of State behaves unreasonably in any way, he may be subject to judicial review. He will always have that in mind. The amendments require the Secretary of State to behave reasonably, and that would have to be enforced --again--by judicial review.

I hope that the House will agree that the amendments do not advance the cause espoused not only by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, but consistently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Snape : I must confess to some disappointment with that reply. We do not appear to have progressed very far since Committee. We cannot lay down a fixed time, because no sanctions are imposed on the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should be dragged out of his office and shot if he fails to make a decision at the proper time ; perhaps he should be given a good cuff round the ear from time to time, but nothing more serious. However, we still do not know any more about the guidelines that the Miniser promised us in Committee. He has given us no further information about them tonight.

I have some bad news for the Minister. According to the latest "Newsnight" opinion poll, Labour is leading by 42 per cent. to 38 per cent. Time is slipping away. Unless the guidelines are published very shortly--

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose --

Mr. McLoughin rose --

Mr. Snape : I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Unless the guidelines are published very shortly, the Minister will not be in a position to do much about them.

Mr. Bennett : On the basis of the good news that he has announced, will my hon. Friend tell us what guidelines he will work to ?

Mr. Snape : I knew that I should have given way to the Minister in the first place. Let me correct my mistake immediately.

Mr. McLoughlin : May I caution the hon. Gentleman about relying on BBC "Newsnight" polls ? At the time of

Column 550

the by-election in which I became a Member of Parliament, they got it wrong, and they have got it wrong many times since then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. After that little interlude, let us return to the amendment.

Mr. Snape : I shall bear your strictures in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as they have been rejected, the amendments are less interesting than the result of the opinion poll.

We regret the Minister's hesitancy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for describing my amendments as moderate and reasonable : I note that he and I have tabled similar amendments relating to a later clause, and, as he will move his first, I may have an opportunity to reciprocate with moderation and helpfulness. We may well get some moderation from the Minister ; whether he will be helpful remains to be seen, but, bearing in mind the fact that he has done his best on earlier occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

Making or refusal of orders undersection 1 or 3

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. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Cryer : Can the Minister tell us what "other means" he has in mind?

Mr. McLoughlin : That 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. Bennett : I 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. McLoughlin : That is why I moved the amendment formally. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Snape : I 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.

Column 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

Column 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. McLoughlin : I 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 1 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. Bennett : Is 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. McLoughlin : The 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

Column 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. Snape : I 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.

Clause 15

Concurrent proceedings

Amendments made : No. 27, in page 9, line 7, leave out or permission' and insert , permission or licence'.

No. 28, in page 9, line 11, leave out from relates' to end of line 13 and insert--

(a) the procedure for obtaining, or otherwise relating to, the consent, permission, licence, order or confirmation, and

(b) the procedure relating to the application made under section 6 above,

are wholly or partly assimilated (and in particular that proceedings relating to the one may be held concurrently with proceedings relating to the other)'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Next Section

Home Page