Clause
40
Timetable
for consultation under section
37
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I beg to move
amendment No. 62, in clause 40, page 19, line 35, leave out
‘28’ and insert ‘56’.
This is a fairly straightforward
amendment, which does not need much explanation. The timetable for
consultation is clearly set out in the clause. Subsection (2)
states:
“A
deadline notified under subsection (1) must not be earlier than the end
of the period of 28 days that begins with the day after the day on
which the person receives the consultation documents.”
Knowing local government as I do, 28 days
is not exactly a lifetime, and this is very much a probing amendment to
get the Minister to reassure the Committee that normally we will be
looking at a longer period than that. I know it is difficult for him to
speculate on the matter, but my concern is that local government might
not be up to speed. Local authorities are often overworked and for all
I know the measure may mean a lot of extra work for them. I have
suggested 56 days, although it could have been longer or a figure in
the middle. I simply want to know what the Minister foresees will be
the median time when the notices will be
issued.
Mrs.
Lait:
I support the need to probe the Minister on the
matter. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the speed at which local
government can move, but I am conscious that there are people for whom
a deadline of 28 days could be exceedingly difficult. It is not beyond
the wit of man or woman to work out that should it be a busy time on
the farm—because so many of these infrastructure projects are
likely to be on farming land—farmers will have other things that
they need to do rather than responding to an application that would
affect them.
An
elderly person whose land was affected could, as we know from our
constituency work, take a lot longer than the time specified to
respond. I have noticed personally that as people get older it takes
them a long time to consider a matter and get their heads around its
implications before they can take action by obtaining legal or other
professional advice. I am generally supportive of an extension on the
grounds that we want to ensure that the pre-application process is as
effective as possible—a point I have made before—and we
are coming to amendments that try to make it more effective. However,
if the process is constrained too tightly its effectiveness might be
lessened and there might be more cause for complaint, which could be
legal or in the form of a complaint at the inquiry. That would lead to
an inevitable delay, and the purpose of the Bill is to reduce those
delays. If the Minister could reassure us of his intentions on the
provision, I should be happy not to press the amendment, as, I am sure,
would the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant
Conwy.
Dan
Rogerson:
I join hon. Members in raising the issue of time
constraints. As the hon. Lady has just said, we are dealing with
well-resourced and well-funded companies or public bodies that are
pursuing development and have recourse to legal and planning advice,
and although we might not want to talk in confrontational terms they
are up against local people and individuals who do not have such
advice. To expect those local people to fall in line with a tight time
scale of 28 days is asking a great deal.
Factors such as periods of
illness or the pre-consultation stage happening during the height of
the holiday season, when people could be away for two or three weeks,
could affect someone’s ability to respond. If the whole point of
the pre-consultation stage is to ensure fairness, openness and that
everyone has a chance to have their say before moving into the formal
application, we ought to allow greater time to get it
right.
Reflecting on
the evidence that we received before we began our clause-by-clause
deliberations, hon. Members will remember that the gentlemen who
represented National Grid and power transmission said that for them the
key was to know when an application would be decided. They need to know
the timetable so that they have some sense of hope that the application
would be resolved at some point. It does not necessarily have to be
done in five or nine months or whatever, so we do not have to focus too
much on driving forward the time scale; the important thing is that
people are aware that there is a time scale and will work to it. With
that in mind, I hope that the Minister will consider this and future
amendments that address the time scale and its impact on people who
have to live with the development for a long time, and ensure that they
can play a full part in the pre-application
consultation.
John
Healey:
Clearly, consultees need sufficient time to
respond to a promoter’s consultation, but it is equally
important that there should be an expectation and requirement that they
give the advice or information that a promoter needs to develop their
proposals in a timely manner. It could be that someone preparing an
application would be dependent upon a statutory consultee, such as a
local authority, for specific information, so the principle of having a
specific time period to help concentrate the mind and ensure that
happens is important. For those who commented on the White Paper, the
belief that a time limit was important was almost universal.
For promoters and many
statutory consultees, the formal pre-application consultation is
unlikely to be either the start or end of involvement in the process.
In most cases, the promoter is likely to have been in touch to consult
them beforehand and will continue to do so during the process. After
the pre-application consultation period, any statutory consultee is
likely to continue to be involved in the process of considering an
application.
To be
clear, the 28 day period is the statutory minimum, and I think that the
hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy understands that point well. It
is obvious to all members of the Committee that big infrastructure
projects will be more complex than other projects, and there may be a
strong case in such circumstances for a longer pre-application
consultation period. In such cases, the promoter may decide that it is
appropriate and in their interests as
well.
Of course, the
commission has the power to give guidance about how to comply with the
consultation, and may decide in specific circumstances to advise a
longer consultation period if it believes that would be helpful.
Obviously, a promoter would want to take that into account, not least
because the commission will decide whether an application is fit for
consideration, so any advice the commission may give will be telling at
that point.
Mr.
Llwyd:
As always, the Minister has been helpful, and I am
sure that what he said has been noted. However, if an individual, for
whatever reason, had been absent for a good part of the 28 days, would
they be able to apply to the IPC or to someone, to say, “Look,
due to extenuating circumstances I have not been able to take advice. I
have not been able to look at this properly. Can I, therefore, apply
now for an extension of the period within which to
respond”?
John
Healey:
Anyone in such broad potential circumstances might
not be in a position to argue, in their single case, for an extension
or alteration of what was set out as an appropriate time period for the
pre-application consultation. However, they would be able to make a
representation, if not to the promoter during the pre-application
process, directly to the commission, as part of the process that it
will undertake in its consideration of any application, which we will
look at
shortly.
Mr.
Llwyd:
The Minister has been helpful. I said that the
amendment was of a probing nature. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
41
Duty
to notify Commission of proposed
application
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
Given that the Committee has agreed that there
should be an infrastructure planning commission, the provision for
consultation with the IPC prior to public consultation is to be
welcomed, and would seem to be good practice. It will be a big change
for many people, because we are probably all aware that many planning
departments and local authorities are so overwhelmed that they
positively discourage discussions before an application. In principle,
pre-consultation discussion between the promoter and the IPC is a good
idea.
However,
I would like the Minister to reassure us on one or two points. One is
the extent of the application. Would an applicant find themselves in
difficulty with the commission if it emerged later on that information
the applicant may inadvertently not have realised was needed was not
forthcoming? To get a positive response, any applicant would obviously
want to be as forthcoming as possible but, with the best will in the
world, there are times when new information appears. We have already
discussed the potential impact of that situation, and I am sure we will
refer to it
again.
9.30
am
The
other aspect is whether, in having these discussions with the
commission, an applicant will be able to suggest that it would be
helpful if none of the information gets into the public domain while
they are still thinking about the application. In any well-managed
project, it is crucial that the information is managed properly. Any
applicant will have serious experience of how that information should be
managed. They could make inquiries of the IPC that are exceedingly
sensitive. Such applicants would appreciate indications on the degree
of confidentiality there would be for any question that they ask the
IPC, however far-fetched and unlikely what they are talking about
proves to be. The
applicant could be dealing with an area of new technology. We are not
expecting that an application for a nuclear power station will suggest
anything other than the tried and trusted technology. However, it is
not impossible that somebody might manage to create nuclear fusion.
Should there be a planning application for a nuclear fusion plant, it
would be revolutionary and there would be implications for it. As I
have said before, I am no scientist, but one can imagine that there
would be implications for such an application that nobody has got their
head around, other than those very bright people who can work out
nuclear fusion. If there were such a proposal, an applicant would have
to know that it would remain totally confidential at that
stage.
I have given an
extreme example, but it is not difficult to envisage a situation in
which an applicant might wish to try out a new technology that would
have implications beyond those that anybody with an interest in the
land or any direct interest has thought about. It is that requirement
for confidentiality about which I want the Minister to reassure
us.
John
Healey:
The hon. Lady has set her concerns in such general
terms that it is quite difficult for me to say that we can legislate to
cover them. However, I will make two points in response. First, were
someone to invent a nuclear fusion process, I doubt that the first
people to hear about it would be members of the IPC in relation to a
particular application. Were a new technology developed in the nuclear
or the renewable sectors, there would be more of an issue over whether
the relevant national policy statement was sufficiently comprehensive
and up to date. Therefore, I think that the provisions of parts 1 and
2, in relation to national policy statements, are more relevant to her
concerns than the problem of
confidentiality.
Secondly,
this is a quite narrow clause. It is about the duty of promoters to
provide certain information to the commission in relation to the
pre-application consultation. It is much more narrowly drawn than the
general concern that the hon. Lady
raises.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the Minister for those points. I
understand the reason for the clause and do not think that we will vote
against it because it is necessary. However, the Minister is dismissing
my concerns too easily. I accept that if somebody were to come up with
workable nuclear fusion, it would be all over the front pages of even
the most popular newspapers. My inquiry was about the possible
consequences, were a revolutionary new technology to be developed. If
there was a nuclear fusion plant, the whole of the grid could be
affected. That would have serious implications. If an applicant went to
the IPC, he would want that to remain confidential.
I am speaking in broad terms.
Often it could be a very little thing. The implication of a development
could have an impact that no one had considered because—although
I cannot believe that this would happen—the applicant had
discovered that the site contained some unique flora or fauna. My hon.
Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned the Newbury bypass on several
occasions. That road was held up on just that sort of basis and we have
seen it time and time again.. I can accept what the Minister is saying
in principle, but I seek an assurance that the IPC’s code of
conduct will have serious controls over
confidentiality.
John
Healey:
I think I understand the hon. Lady’s
concerns although I do not share them either in general terms or in
relation to the adequacy of the Bill . We will shortly debate
aspects of clause 45(4), which allows the Secretary of State to make
regulations about whether information about a request by a promoter for
advice must or may be disclosed. I do not entirely share the hon.
Lady’s concern because the developer will have to make public
such information as is needed to undertake a proper consultation and to
allow the public and others with an interest to understand fully and
come to a view of the nature of the application. The IPC will want to
ensure that that happens. I understand what she is saying about
confidentiality for the developer, but he will have to disclose the
range of relevant information so that people can understand what is
likely to be proposed. I should have thought that the hon. Lady and the
Committee would wish to see us insist on that as we try to do in the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sorry that this is turning into a bit of
dialogue. I will try to draw it to a conclusion. A developer would wish
to be in control of the information process. He would not wish to be
driven by the inadvertent disclosure of information by the IPC before
he wanted it to come into the public domain. That is where the
confidentiality is. I am assuming that a developer will go to the IPC
before he goes to public consultation, so the IPC will have prior
information. But it is surely not for the IPC to publish such
information. It should remain in the control of the developer. If the
IPC is not under a strict regime of confidentiality, that information
stream would be affected. That is why I am so concerned to have
assurances from the Minister that the IPC would be bound by
confidentiality.
John
Healey:
I have no interest in keeping this dialogue going
unnecessarily and if it helps the hon. Lady, I will reflect on what she
said. But at the pre-application stage the promoter has responsibility
for the materials that are produced. It is his responsibility to ensure
that the consultation is thorough and properly conducted. The
commission has the role of offering advice on that, which promoters
would want to follow. It is not the commission’s responsibility
to produce information on the consultation. That is rightly the
promoter’s responsibility. I will reflect further on what the
hon. Lady said about confidentiality and if there is a serious concern
we will return to it
later.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 41
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
