Clause
8
Consultation
on publicity
requirements
John
Healey:
I beg to move amendment No. 49, in
clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave
out ‘district council’ and insert ‘county council,
or district
council,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 50 to 52, 151 and
152.
John
Healey:
We are committed to ensuring that local people
have their say during the development of national policy statements
that identify particular locations as potentially suitable for national
infrastructure projects. Under clause 8, when the Secretary of State is
determining what sort of publicity is appropriate, the local authority
in which the land is located and the adjoining local authorities must
be consulted. Similar provision is included in parts 4 and 6 for
development consents in consultations with interested
parties.
However, as
currently drafted, the relevant clauses would require consultation and
publicity to be at district council level only in those areas where
there are two-tiered local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is
to ensure that in such areas the county council will also be consulted.
I hope that that is sensible, clear and
acceptable.
Mr.
Curry:
To clarify, metropolitan and unitary councils are
technically district councils under the terms of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
Is that the last gasp of the current Foreign
Secretary, who decided to play around with local
government reorganisation when he was in the Department for Communities
and Local Government, decided that he wanted unitary councils and
completely forgot about county councils, because that is what this
smacks of? I have to declare an interest because my husband is the
leader of East Sussex county
council.
John
Healey:
He is a very busy
man.
Mrs.
Lait:
He is a very busy man and a very effective
leader— [
Interruption.
] In the interests of
unity on this side of the Committee, I will not comment on the robust
financial health of that particular county.
What can we do but agree that
the Minister should bring into the scope of the Bill the county
councils, which are one of the key operators in local government? It is
with a degree of amusement rather than pleasure that I say that we will
not oppose the
amendments.
Mr.
Curry:
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and I
are concerned about national park authorities. Are they technically
county councils?
Mr.
Llwyd:
Is there an oversight here? In Snowdonia and in the
area of Yorkshire represented by the right hon. Member for Skipton and
Ripon, the planning authority is the national park authority. With
regard to planning, those national park authorities are free-standing
from the local council. Will the Minister advise us as to whether those
should also be
included?
3.30
pm
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman might be mixing things up. The
clause is about consulting the local community, and the role of
councils, as elected representatives, in advising the Secretary of
State on appropriate publicity arrangements for any potential national
policy statement that may include specific locations. In that respect,
the fact that national parks are planning authorities is not relevant
to the substance of the clause. I hope that that is
helpful.
Amendment
agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 50,
in clause 8, page 4, leave out lines 41 and
42.—[John
Healey.]
Clause
8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
s
9 and 10
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
11
Pre-commencement
statements of policy, consultation
etc.
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 193, in
clause 11, page 5, line 36, leave
out subsection (3).
We
do not need to spend a huge amount of time on the amendment, unless any
of my hon. Friends have any further queries. The purpose of tabling the
amendment was to seek assurances on the development of air transport,
and waste and nuclear policy. I think that the Minister might get more
than a little irate if we went over that debate yet again. So, unless
there is anything else that he wishes to add, I would be prepared to
withdraw the
amendment.
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Lady cannot withdraw the
amendment yet.
John
Healey:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham for
the way that she has moved the amendment. The hon. Lady is right that
we have already covered the ground in great detail, but even that would
not tempt me to become irate. I am grateful for her indication that she
is looking to withdraw the
amendment.
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
11
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
12
Legal
challenges relating to national policy
statements
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 195, in
clause 12, page 6, line 6, leave
out ‘6’ and insert
‘12’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be
convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 75, in
clause 12,
page 6, line 12, leave out from
‘review’ to end of line 14.
No. 196, in
clause 12, page 6, line 13, leave
out ‘6’ and insert
‘12’.
No.
248, in
clause 12, page 6, line 14, after
‘day’, insert ‘of
publication’.
No.
197, in
clause 12, page 6, line 18, leave
out ‘6’ and insert
‘12’.
No.
249, in
clause 12, page 6, line 19, leave
out ‘State complies’ and insert ‘State’s
compliance’.
No.
250, in
clause 12, page 6, line 20, at
end insert ‘is
published’.
No.
198, in
clause 12, page 6, line 25, leave
out ‘6’ and insert
‘12’.
No.
251, in
clause 12, page 6, line 26, leave
out ‘State complies’ and insert ‘State’s
compliance’.
No.
252, in
clause 12, page 6, line 27, at
end insert ‘is
published’.
No.
199, in
clause 12, page 6, line 32, leave
out ‘6’ and insert
‘12’.
No.
253, in
clause 12, page 6, line 33, at
end insert ‘or (if later)
published’.
No.
200, in
clause 12, page 6, line 38, leave
out ‘6’ and insert
‘12’.
No.
254, in
clause 12, page 6, line 39, after
‘day’, insert ‘of
publication’.
Clause
stand
part.
Robert
Neill:
The scheme proposed is fairly straightforward. We
seek to extend the time period for bringing a claim by way of judicial
review from six to 12 weeks. I touched on some of the reasons involved
in relation to the earlier amendments on publicity, but it is perhaps
just as cogent here.
The factual and legal issues
for those instigating a judicial review are likely to be complex. The
scale of what is involved is likely to be substantial. In terms of
fairness and a sort of equality of arms argument, a period of 12 rather
than six weeks is appropriate, just and proportionate and likely to be
advantageous at the end of the day in making sure that further
complaint is less justifiable. We hope that the Minister will look on
that with favour. A 12-week period for something as important as
national policy statements on nuclear power, airports and so on does
not seem at all unreasonable. It is not likely to create a significant
delay in the overall scheme of things with major capital projects of
that kind.
That is
what that this set of amendments seeks to do. The
first is amendment No. 195, but its provisions are
replicated throughout the group. Amendment No. 248, which again is
largely replicated elsewhere, deals with the simple point that the time
for bringing a challenge should run from the date of publication of the
Secretary of State’s decision rather than from the date that it
is signed or takes effect. It is a simple reality that sometimes there
is a delay between an Executive decision and publication. The amendment
provides protection for the individual or the group, because they will
not know about the decision until it is published. There have been
complaints in other contexts where there is a delay in publication of a
decision. I am sure that that is not what is intended here, but things
sometimes go awry.
The amendments would ensure
that those who have to consider whether to bring a challenge have 12
weeks from the time that they first knew about the decision.
That seems only just and there are consequential amendments on that.
Amendment No. 249 makes equivalent changes so that the clause would
read: “the Secretary of
State’s compliance...is published”.
Publication triggers the knowledge to
enable people to consider whether they want to bring a review or
not.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I support the amendments. They are reasonable. They
add to the clause as it stands. As the hon. Gentleman said, six weeks
is not a great deal of time when there could be a week’s time
lag between the decision and publication. When consulting planners
and/or lawyers and then taking specialist counsel’s opinion, six
weeks is no time at all. It is much shorter than the usual time limit
on a judicial review. The hon. Gentleman put his case very
strongly.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it
is not just the legal profession that could take time. He comes from a
rural constituency and I can imagine that in the middle of a busy time
for farmers, it would be exceedingly difficult to get an argument
together in six weeks.
Mr.
Llwyd:
With respect, with some of the farmers I know, six
years would not be enough. I hope that that is not being recorded, by
the
way—
Mr.
Llwyd:
Well that is the end of my seat then. It is back to
legal practice now I have put my big foot in it. Do not make it worse
for me,
Minister.
John
Healey:
It is nearly 4 o’clock on a Thursday
afternoon. I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In
many cases farmers measure time by seasons rather than by weeks. I
quite understand what he was
saying.
Mr.
Llwyd:
That probably takes the edge off what I just said.
There is no need to add much more. The case has been very strongly made
by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It would be reasonable
to extend the time, not so that people can spin matters out—part
of the raison d’être of the Bill is to speed matters up,
properly and reasonably—but because imposing a six-week limit
would be entirely unreasonable and against the spirit of the
clause.
Dan
Rogerson:
I shall not press amendment No. 75 to a
Division. The hon. Gentleman made a strong argument for the amendments
he tabled, and I believe that they would improve the
Bill.
John
Healey:
It is indeed the case that the usual rule in
judicial reviews is that claims must be filed promptly and, in any
event, not later than three months after the grounds on which they are
being made first arose. However, under the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990, a six-week period for commencing proceedings applies to
statutory challenges to local development plans. In many ways, the
production of national policy statements is comparable to local
development plans for the purposes of the
provision.
The
overall process of obtaining development consent for nationally
significant infrastructure projects can be very long. The hon. Member
for Meirionnydd Nant
Conwy rightly said that part of the rightful purpose of the Bill is to
speed that process up. It is in the national interest that any legal
challenges are filed promptly and without delay. The final form of a
national policy statement will come after extensive public consultation
and is likely to have been subject to extensive public and
parliamentary scrutiny, which will help to pick up potential defects so
that they may be corrected. Usually, there will be little or no need
for courts to get involved at the end of the process; at least, there
ought to be little or no
need. There is also no
need for the Bill to set out the period in which a
judicial review can be brought or to include a date by which to publish
the Secretary of State’s activity in relation to that. National
policy statements will be drawn up and designated through the clear and
open process that we debated this morning and afternoon. Throughout,
and at each stage of the process, there will be considerable reference
to interested parties, so actions on behalf of or by the Secretary of
State that could result in legal challenge will therefore be obvious to
those interested parties at a much earlier stage, not just at the time
of publication.
On
that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not feel it necessary to
press the amendments to a Division, and that clause 12 stands part of
the Bill.
Robert
Neill:
I am a little disappointed by the
Minister’s response. I hope that he is right about the
transparency of the arrangements, but I am particularly disappointed
about the time limit period, because we do not believe that the
comparison with local development frameworks is valid given the size
and complexities of the issues that we are dealing with. They are chalk
and cheese—and the size and complexity of the issues is the
difference. This is much more like those other substantial issues that
are sometimes dealt with by judicial review. The idea that taking a
further six weeks to consider where to build a power station, port or
airport will make a significant difference to the national interest
does not stack up. I am sorry that the Government are rigid on
amendment No. 195, because it was designed to help rather than hinder.
I shall therefore press it to a Division.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
10.
Division
No.
8
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 12 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Watts.]
Adjourned
accordingly at fourteen minutes to Four o’clock till Tuesday 22
January at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
