Clause
49
Acceptance
of
applications
Amendments
made: No. 360, in clause 49, page 24, line 41, at end
insert—
‘(ba) that
development consent is required for any of the development to which the
application
relates,’.
No.
361, in
clause 49, page 25, line 1, leave
out ‘it’ and insert ‘the
application’.—[John
Healey.]
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 203, in
clause 49, page 25, line 8, leave
out ‘from a local-authority
consultee’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 204, in
clause 49, page 25, leave out lines 10 to
14.
No. 205, in
clause 49, page 25, line 17, leave
out ‘and 43’ and insert ‘, 43 and
44’.
Robert
Neill:
The three amendments all hang together. They build
on what the Government and almost all the witnesses recognised as the
important issue of ensuring that there is a robust consultation
procedure, which we seek to strengthen. The clause requires certain
tests to be met for the application to be accepted, because requiring
the applicant to demonstrate the robustness of the consultation is
important. From what the Minister has said, I think that the Government
accept that
principle.
We think
that it would be right and proper to apply the same requirements that
currently exist for local authorities to the community generally.
Although there will frequently be an overlap, one can think of many
cases in which representations from members of the community will be of
a different kind to those made by the local authority. That requirement
would not add to the time scale, but it has the useful purpose of
requiring the applicant to apply their mind to the issues raised by
community objections. It is also important that they are seen to apply
their mind to such things, which is a useful discipline that could
result in time being saved later. We also think it right and proper,
and much more consistent with good practice under domestic and European
law, that reasons should be given for the views that applicants
take.
Amendments
Nos. 203 and 204 would extend the requirement to members of the
community. Amendment No. 205 would require the applicant, as well as
taking account of the objections, briefly to set out their responses,
which would demonstrate that the applicant has applied their mind to
what all the consultees have said. They can set out their stance
succinctly, and it need not be an onerous task. That would help with
the crystallisation of issues for the next stage of the process, and it
would help the process to be seen to be fair and
transparent.
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman and I share a concern to see
good, thorough consultation as part of this stage of the process of
dealing with applications. If I clarify how the clause works, perhaps
he might be
reassured.
The
reference to a “local authority consultee” in subsection
(4) would not prevent other parties from
submitting representations about how adequate the consultation had been
or mean that the commission could ignore them. Indeed, if someone were
to write to the commission raising concerns about how adequate the
consultation had been, it would be obliged by the basic principles of
administrative law to take that into account in coming to a
decision. 2
pm
The wording in
clause 49 simply means that representations from the relevant local
authorities about how well the promoter has consulted the local
community should be given particular attention by the IPC for two
reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe
pointed out, local authorities have a unique knowledge about their
area, a democratic mandate and experience of how best to ensure that
local people are involved and that their views are taken into account.
We want to ensure that that special experience and knowledge is
captured and made available to the IPC.
Secondly,
the Bill therefore puts a specific duty on promoters to consult the
relevant local authorities when they are working out how to consult the
local community that may be affected by their proposals. Local
authorities will have been involved in the promoter’s planning
of the pre-application consultation from an early stage. They will know
what the promoter committed to doing during that process and will be in
a strong position to pass judgment and comment on how effective the
consultation has
been.
For those
reasons, it is appropriate that the IPC has regard to the local
authority’s views, as proposed in the clause as
drafted.
Robert
Neill:
I do not disagree with anything that was said about
local authorities. I spent 16 years on a local authority and I am a
pro-local authority person. However, I do not entirely see why it
should not be practical to look beyond the local authority at other
people, too. The Minister did not respond to the fact that in some
cases, but not in others, the views of the local authority and of the
residents will coincide. I would not want the—perhaps
unintended—consequence of advantaging one set of consultees at
the expense of another, which would be unfair.
I will not press the amendment
to a Division, but I hope that before Report the Minister will reflect
on how we can take account of the valued input of local authorities and
also ensure fairness to individuals, residents associations or other
representative groups. If only a small part of a local
authority’s area is directly affected, there may be different
perspectives that should be given equal weight. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
50
Notifying
persons of accepted
application
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 179, in
clause 50, page 25, line 42, leave
out ‘28’ and insert ‘56’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 264, in
clause 50, page 26, line 6, at
end insert—
‘(7A) The
publicity of the application shall include, as a minimum, advertising
the application for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in
the locality of the application and in the
Gazette.’.
No.
265, in
clause 50, page 26, line 6, at
end insert—
‘(7B) The
application shall be made available for inspection by the public at a
reasonably convenient location within the vicinity of the application
site and on a website.
(7C) The
public may obtain paper and electronically recorded copies of the
application for no more than the cost of copying the
material.’.
No.
266, in
clause 50, page 26, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(8A) The
deadline referred to in subsection (8) shall be not less than 28 days
from the first publication of notice of the
application.’.
Dan
Rogerson:
Never let me be accused of being inconsistent,
Mr. Illsley.
Amendment No. 179 relates to
the time periods available to objectors in notifying the commission of
their objection. The Bill as drafted specifies 28 days. For the reasons
that we discussed earlier, and may well return to, that may be too
short a period.
I am
mindful that the IPC’s work load will be about 40 applications a
year and it may well increase. I would hate it to become very busy, as
lots of applications are submitted in mid to late December and late
July, so people in the community receive notifications at a time of
year when they may be otherwise occupied. That might sound as if I am
cynical and deeply suspicious of these processes, but my reading of the
Bill is that the notification period in clause 50(5) is not up for
negotiation with the commission, but is set by the applicants
themselves.
I find
it rather odd that the applicant decides how long people have to
register an objection, but if that is to be the case, 28 days is overly
generous to them in dictating that period. I hope that the Minister
will consider the matter again. It is very important, as it is a real
opportunity for people whose concerns have not been met at the
pre-application stage to get involved at the application stage, and to
ensure that all the evidence that they have to bring to bear is put
forward. It is a crucial question, and I hope that he will be slightly
less rigid at this
juncture.
Robert
Neill:
I do not disagree with the principle of the hon.
Gentleman’s point. I am always willing to try to be an honest
broker between him and the Minister. If we split the difference in this
case, between 28 and 56, we do indeed arrive at 42 days. That is
perhaps the only logical justification for 42 days that I have yet
heard since it was produced. We may have answered the question of my
right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, and found a reason,
for once, for the figure of 42 days which is principled as well as
pragmatic.
I wish to
make a different, although related, point on our amendments, moving
from the time aspect to minimum standards of publicity for the
application. As anyone who has looked at good practice in the planning
field will know, we have adapted what is good
practice anyway—giving two consecutive weeks’ notice in
the local newspaper and the Gazette, ensuring that it is posted
up in a reasonably convenient location, because one can imagine a large
rural area where getting to the local civic centre is quite a trek for
people, and recognising the right to obtain copies at a reasonable
cost. None of that is in the slightest bit onerous to an applicant for
the sort of applications that we are considering. Perhaps the
Government intend that those things should happen in practice, but our
amendments spell out more specifically rights that are valuable,
especially to the individual concerned. They do not harm the scheme of
the Bill either. Even
at an advanced hour, there is occasionally the opportunity for a degree
of flexibility and charity. I know that the Minister is a charitable
man at heart. The amendments would be a concession to the smaller
people, which would do no harm at all to the Government’s
objectives, and would not hurt anyone. Against that background, I hope
that he reflects favourably on them.
John
Healey:
We are breaking some interesting political ground
this afternoon. The Tories are triangulating and trying to stake out
common middle ground, and the Liberal Democrats are being
consistent.
I agree
with that it is important that people who are affected by an
application have suitable and sufficient time to formulate any
representation that they want to make to the IPC. As things stand, I
believe that 28 days is the appropriate length of time for interested
parties to do that. I will try to explain
why.
First, let us
not forget that, by the time an interested party is formally notified
of an application, they are likely to know a great deal about the
proposals in the application. It is highly unlikely that it will be the
first that they have heard about it, or that it will be the first time
that they turn their mind to it. Instead, the application process will
have been preceded by an extensive period of consultation and
discussion at the pre-application stage, which we considered in part 5.
By the time an application is submitted, people who may be affected
will be well aware of any problems that they could have with it. In
that context, 28 days is an appropriate length of time for them to
respond. Of course, the period can be longer if the applicant thinks it
necessary.
As the
hon. Gentleman said, amendments Nos. 264 to 266 would put some minimum
standards for publicising an application in the Bill. I ask him to bear
it in mind that the Bill already allows for the Secretary of State to
make more detailed regulations about how publicity should be carried
out. In particular, subsection (7) gives the Secretary of State powers
to prescribe minimum standards for publicity and
notification.
Amendment
No. 266 would impose a deadline of at least 28 days, by which
representations relating to an application must be submitted. That
would apply to those who are not notified directly by the applicant,
but who respond to the publicity. Regulations are better placed to deal
with the issue in a more detailed way, and they will do so. We have
deliberately allowed for flexibility in the regulations under
subsection (8) so that the deadlines by which people must make their
representations
take account of different circumstances. I give the hon. Gentleman the
reassurance that we have no intention of using that flexibility to set
a deadline of fewer than 28
days.
Robert
Neill:
Will the Minister also assure me that the type of
issues covered in amendments Nos. 264 and 265 are the sort of things
that regulations should
cover?
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the Minister for his
reassurance that there will be further regulation on these matters. I
understood that subsection (8) related to the form of publicity, but if
the Minister is saying that in determining that, greater consideration
will be given to the time frame, it is very helpful. The process must
be seen to be fair and objectors might find it somewhat odd if it were
the applicant setting the period for response rather than the
commission. However, on the basis of the Minister’s assurances,
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
50
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
53
Initial
choice of Panel or single
commissioner
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 299, in
clause 53, page 27, line 28, leave
out from beginning to ‘must’ and insert ‘The
Secretary of
State’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 300, in
clause 53, page 27, line 41, leave
out
‘and’.
No.
301, in
clause 53, page 27, line 42, at
end insert ‘, and
(d) the relevant
local planning
authorities.’.
No.
302, in
clause 53, page 28, line 1, leave
out
‘or’.
No.
303, in
clause 53, page 28, line 2, at
end insert ‘, or
(c) by the
relevant local planning
authorities.’.
No.
305, in
clause 54, page 28, line 8, leave
out from beginning to ‘may’ and insert ‘The
Secretary of
State’.
No.
306, in
clause 54, page 28, line 23, leave
out
‘or’.
No.
307, in
clause 54, page 28, line 24, at
end insert ‘or
(c) by the relevant
local planning
authorities.’.
No.
304, in
clause 54, page 28, line 26, at
end add—
‘(6) A person
making a decision under subsection (2) must publish a statement setting
out the reasons for their
decision.’.
No.
308, in
clause 57, page 29, line 28, leave
out from beginning to ‘must’ and insert ‘The
Secretary of
State’.
No.
309, in
clause 57, page 29, line 39, leave
out
‘and’.
No.
310, in
clause 57, page 29, line 40, at
end insert ‘and
(d) the relevant
local planning
authorities.’.
No.
311, in
clause 57, page 30, line 3, leave
out ‘or’.
No. 312, in
clause 57, page 30, line 4, after
‘Commission’, insert
‘or
(c) the relevant local planning
authorities.’.
No.
313, in
clause 57, page 30, line 5, at
end add—
‘(6) The person
appointed to make appointments under subsection (1) shall do so on the
advice of the
Council.’.
No.
314, in
clause 58, page 30, line 15, at
beginning insert
‘The
Secretary of State may in consultation
with’.
No.
315, in
clause 58, page 30, line 16, leave
out
‘may’.
No.
316, in
clause 58, page 30, line 17, leave
out ‘the chair’ and insert ‘the Secretary of
State’.
No.
318, in
clause 58, page 30, line 19, leave
out
‘may’.
No.
317, in
clause 58, page 30, line 20, leave
out ‘the chair’ and insert ‘the Secretary of
State’.
No.
288, in
clause 71, page 34, line 25, leave
out subsection
(2).
No. 289, in
clause 71, page 34, line 31, leave
out
‘and’.
No.
290, in
clause 71, page 34, line 32, at
end insert ‘and
(d) the relevant
local planning
authorities.’.
No.
291, in
clause 71, page 34, line 35, leave
out
‘or’.
No.
292, in
clause 71, page 34, line 36, at
end insert ‘or
(c) the relevant
local planning
authorities.’.
Dan
Rogerson:
As far as I am aware, this group of amendments
does not have any relation to time scales of 28, 56 or 42
days.
The amendments
relate to the choice of whether a panel or a single commissioner should
be appointed to consider an application. I would like to put it on
record that I have concerns about the single commissioner process in
any case. We are talking about very complex
considerations.
We
have heard already that the commission will be established in such a
way as to represent a broad cross-section of areas of technical
expertise and experience. That is a noble aspiration, regardless of my
position on the commission as a whole. If that is the reality, it will
help the commission to do its job. However, if one person is asked to
be the repository for all of that experience and knowledge with regard
to one application, I think that they will struggle. That is why I
tabled an amendment that has not been selected for debate because it
concerns a clause stand part issue with regard to clause 70 and the use
of single commissioners. Perhaps we will return to that matter
later.
2.15
pm
The amendments
focus on two issues. First, they would give responsibility to the
Secretary of State for choosing between a panel and a single
commissioner. If we are to have the facility of having a single
commissioner, it is not particularly onerous for the Secretary of State
to make that choice on the advice of the commission’s council.
However, we think that it is important, as part of the process of being
seen to be
fair, that the Secretary of State should have some involvement in making
that decision and choosing who will serve on that
body. There are
potential issues about people being unhappy with certain commissioners.
We are talking hypothetically about a new body, but the longer
commissioners serve on the panel, the more their track record and
particular areas of expertise will become apparent, and that is an
important part of the process on which someone else can express a view.
On that basis, I hope that that someone would be accountable. I will
not rehearse the debate about how accountable the Secretary of State is
with regard to planning, but it would only be right and proper that the
Secretary of State makes the decision on who would consider each
application.
I also
tabled amendments in this group that deal with the ability of the local
authority to be consulted on that. A local authority will have people
in its planning department who keep a close eye on the track record of
individual commissioners and might have a view on what each
commissioner could bring to the panel. That does not mean that they
could be chosen because an interest might incline them to be for or
against an application, but because they have reassured the local
community through their local authority that they have the broad range
of skills necessary to consider a complicated application. Therefore, I
think that the Bill would benefit from the ability of the local
authority to have some input in that decision.
I have
concerns about the use of single commissioners, but we will no doubt
return to that when we deal with later clauses. I would, however, be
interested to hear the Minister’s justification for having an
internal decision within the commission to decide whom to appoint to
each project. There could be a perception that unfortunate things were
going on within the commission, so it would be more transparent to have
the Secretary of State make that decision. The basis behind the
amendments is that the Secretary of State should be responsible for
allocating the personnel to consider each application and that the
local authority, in particular, should be able to contribute to that
decision.
Robert
Neill:
I broadly support the thrust of the hon.
Gentleman’s comments and associate myself with them. I also hope
that the Minister, in his response, can assist us a little more by
fleshing out the sort of circumstances in which it is envisaged that
the single commissioner procedure would be used, because I share the
hon. Gentleman’s misgivings about it We have flagged that up
earlier in debate, so I will not repeat it now. However, I would like
to note just what the Minister sees as the justification for it, in
what circumstances it would be used and what the practical effects
will.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I am also a little
bothered about that. The principle of the Bill is to isolate certain
questions relating to large infrastructure projects and the purpose of
the commission is to bring together a range of expertise. The Minister
said that that had to cover expertise in human relation and in dealing
with communities as well as expertise on the material substance of
project, such as nuclear or transport issues. Therefore, unless
we will have a renaissance man or woman on the panel, a single person
will find it difficult to have the necessary range of expertise, which
is very wide. There is social as well as technical and economic
expertise that will deliver this. I find it almost a contradiction in
terms to set up a commission specially to handle these large projects
and then to say that one person can deal with it. That seems
curious.
Secondly,
commissioners can be taken ill. If there is a single panel and that
person becomes ill or is involved in an accident or has pressing
personal circumstances, it is unreasonable that the whole process
should be halted while that is sorted out. Nor would it be possible to
ferry in a new commissioner to do it without having to recapitulate all
the evidence because otherwise it would be wide open to legal
challenge. Surely it makes sense on the pure grounds of an insurance
policy to have a number of commissioners so that if one of them has an
accident, is taken or there is a problem, the other commissioners can
carry on without there being any doubts about the range of expertise
that is still available to the trial. I presume there will be some
rules at some stage about what happens if a commissioner has to be
absent from some parts of a proceeding and whether they can come back
and carry on or would have to count themselves
out.
Thirdly as the
hon. Member for North Cornwall said, commissioners will inevitably
begin to acquire individual reputations. Planning inspectors have
individual reputations now. People ask, “Who are we going to be
heard by?” They do have different performances. People will
inevitably prefer one commissioner over another because they seem more
sympathetic and deal with matters in a different way. It is equally
important that there should never be any taint that the person
appointed should have some particular affinity with the sector that is
being dealt with. All those three items seem to indicate that we might
have a streamlined panel, but there has to be a minimum range of
expertise to enable it to carry on in the circumstances in which events
of one sort or another buffet
it.
The Minister may
say that in the early stages there would be no question of a single
panel with a single commissioner. But precedents will be set and there
will be the first cases. I am sure that it will make sense for the
early cases to be heard by a group of commissioners, not least so that
a sort of case law is built up and established practice is built up in
which people have confidence. By the time they are getting their 56th
application for a nuclear power station, which is a long way down the
line, they could say that so many other decisions have been taken that
it takes on more of a routine and predictable character.
There again one runs into the
objections from objectors who say, “Hang on. This is our
application. This is my backyard and I am concerned about that.”
I should be grateful if the Minister could outline in what
circumstances a single commissioner would hear the entire case. Would
that be down the line when a significant body of case law had been
built up? What would be the provision if that single commissioner were
incapacitated so that the proceedings were brought to a halt or
significantly delayed?
John
Healey:
Clauses 53 to 58 are essentially about the powers
and role of the chair in putting together
either a single commissioner or a panel in which to make applications
and also in the freedom in certain circumstances to make changes to the
arrangements. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the right
hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked about the circumstances in
which a single commissioner may hear an application. It is certainly
the case that many of the major infrastructure projects will be
complex. They will be major applications and will need to be looked at
by a panel of commissioners but a range of smaller or less complex
projects will be heard by the IPC under the framework of this
Bill.
I was asked
for specific examples. Two might suffice in this context. They could be
smaller projects on the strategic road network or electricity
transmission and distribution system. Such projects may not be
particularly large or complex—for example, they may be
improvements to a key road junction—but because they are
critical to the operational effectiveness of the network as a whole
they are nevertheless of national significance and therefore a matter
for the IPC. We considered in parts 3 and 4 what constitutes a
nationally significant infrastructure
project.
Dan
Rogerson:
I accept that there will by comparison be
schemes that are smaller than others. However, by their very nature if
they are of nationally significant importance they will be bigger than
the average planning application to the local authority. There will be
people in the area who are affected by them who will be interested in
who will determine the application, as the right hon. Member for
Skipton and Ripon said. What I am trying to say is that it is all
relative. Does the Minister
agree?
John
Healey:
No. It is not all relative. It is not a matter of
size. Projects may be appropriately determined by a single commissioner
not because they are big or particularly complex but because they are
part of infrastructure such as an electricity or road network that is
of national significance. That is what brings them into the ambit of
the IPC. However, some applications could be heard by a single
commissioner and not require the sort of commission panel that an
application for a new nuclear power station, for example, might
justify.
Mr.
Curry:
The Minister and I both represent Yorkshire
constituencies, so I assume that we are equally familiar with the A1.
The hon. Gentleman, and you, Mr. Illsley, will know that
there are three major roundabout improvements in north Nottinghamshire
and south Yorkshire, which are intended to solve a problem that I have
never encountered in all the time I have been driving up and down the
A1. Are those projects key small parts of a national network? How would
the Minister classify them? If applications for those roundabout
improvements were made after the Bill became law, how would he classify
them in terms of their relationship to the A1, which has been a
national link since the Romans built
it?
John
Healey:
The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to
pre-empt a decision on a hypothetical situation. The A1 is clearly a
network of major national significance, but how an application or
project
may be treated will be determined by the criteria set out in the Bill
rather than in view of any observation that I might
make.
The
Bill provides that projects can be examined by a single commissioner
who would not take the decision alone but submit a report with
recommendations to the council of the commission. In all circumstances
a group of commissioners rather than a single commissioner would take
the decision for the commission.
Dan
Rogerson:
The council then becomes a more crucial body,
which we have not explored in depth. Can the Minister confirm that the
council would be chaired by the chair of the commission? There is a
facility in this part of the Bill for the chair of the commission, who
has a vital role in the commission as it is currently structured, to
appoint himself—or herself—to be the person who considers
that application. The chairman takes a decision to appoint himself to
be the single commissioner, then conducts the inquiry, handles the
application, makes the recommendation and chairs the commission as
well. That might be a rare, hypothetical situation, but it is
possible.
John
Healey:
A chair who adopted all those roles would have to
be a super-workaholic. It is likely to be the proper role for the chair
to chair the council or, in some circumstances, that could be
undertaken by one of the deputy chairs of the commission.
The purpose that underpins
these clauses is ensuring that we have a way of considering any
application that is proportionate to the complexity and the demands of
the
case.
2.30
pm
I turn to the
question of appointments being a matter for the commission. I will
explain why I take the view that they should be a matter for the
commission rather than for the Secretary of State, as proposed by the
hon. Gentleman. Under the circumstances in which an application would
be received, the commission and, in particular, the chair of the
commission will be much better placed than the Secretary of State to
make decisions about whether it should be handled by a panel or by a
single commissioner, and, subsequently, whether it would be
appropriate, for example, to switch to a panel rather than a single
commissioner. Adding to the Bill the requirement for a statement of
those reasons would be adding a paper
exercise.
The hon.
Gentleman’s central point is that it should be the Secretary of
State and not the chair of the commission who should make such
decisions. I think that the Secretary of State would accept that they
do not know the details of each particular case. The commission will
have all the documentation, including the reports on the
pre-application consultation; it will know the issues that need to be
resolved; it will know how complex the issues are; and, from the
experience that it will build up, it will have a good sense of the
appropriate way of dealing with such issues. In practice, if it were up
to the Secretary of State to take such decisions, they would almost
certainly have to rely
on the advice of the commission. In addition, these are essentially
practical decisions and so not appropriate for the Secretary of
State. On the
question of appointments, it is our intention that every commissioner
will be capable of considering each and every application, whether as a
member of a panel or as a single commissioner. The correct role for the
Secretary of State within that system is surely to appoint members of
the commission who have the right qualities. That is the role that
schedule 1 will give
them.
It
is rightly a matter for the chair of the commission to decide which
member or members should handle a particular case, subject to the
provisions of clause 62 about applications in Wales. The chair of the
commission will be the chief executive. They will know which
commissioners are available to handle a new application; whether any
commissioners have experience that would be valuable; and about any
interests that commissioners have that will prevent them from
considering an application. It is for those reasons that we are placing
this power and this responsibility with the commission rather than the
Secretary of State. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept those
reasons.
Robert
Neill:
I was hoping that the Minister would help on the
other point that was raised by my right hon. Friend about what will
happen if a single commissioner is in some way incapacitated. That is
not a fanciful situation. A few years back, there was some publicity of
a long and complicated copyright case in the High Court. The judge
reserved judgment and died before he had given his final judgment. How
would we deal with such
circumstances?
John
Healey:
To short circuit that issue, if the hon. Gentleman
and the right hon. Gentleman look at clause 74, it has provision to
deal with such
circumstances.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the
time to consider the amendments. I am not entirely convinced by what he
is saying about the Secretary of State having to rely on the advice of
the commission. In other debates, we have heard about instances in
which the Secretary of State under the current regime has decided not
to go along with the advice of the Planning Inspectorate on individual
applications. The Secretary of State does have his or her own mind.
That issue should be considered together with what we have said about
the local authority being able to express a view as to the suitability
of a particular commissioner. The local authority is acting not in a
vacuum, but as the representative of the local community, so it can put
forward the views of the local community to the Secretary of State in
those
circumstances.
The
Minister has sought to advance the principle throughout the Bill that
the framework for considering decisions on policy, structure, and
regulation is set by democratically accountable politicians, through
the relevant Department, the Secretary of State, the Ministers and
secondary legislation. The decisions take place within that structure.
One can argue that that is the distinction and that it stacks
up.
However, I
would argue that the decision on who the commissioners are could be
regarded as a political one, and, therefore, it ought to rest with the
Secretary of State and the person who is setting the framework within
which the decision will be taken. For that reason, I am of the opinion
that it could be an important question later
on.
We
may have the opportunity, as we look at other clauses and hold stand
part debates, to consider the notion of the single commissioner, and
whether it is an appropriate mechanism for hearing an application. The
question of who sits on the panel is crucial, and if the decision is
taken among the members of the commission, it could bring the whole
process into question. I certainly do not want that to happen.
Therefore, I seek the Committee’s leave to press the amendment
to a
division.
Mr.
Curry:
I have not been able to resist the temptation of
looking at clause 74, and it helped, although not that much. It states
that if a new commissioner takes over, they can pretend that they were
the old commissioner:
“the new single Commissioner may,
so far as may be
appropriate”—
that
wonderful word, which, coupled with “reasonable”, enables
Government
function—
“decide
to treat things done by or in relation to any previous single
Commissioner as done by or in relation to the new single
Commissioner.”
In
the next clause, it states that the commissioner is under an obligation
to ensure that he knows what he is talking about. At the very least,
there will have to be an interval in which the new commissioner reads
himself or herself in. The nature of the applications is such that that
will not be done in a weekend with a wet towel. It could cause a
significant
delay.
Also, people
who are concerned about an application will be given a soft target in
being able to say, “Well, the new commissioner did not
understand all that happened in the past. They seem to have missed
crucial things.” It suggests that one should be very cautious
before taking the risk of going to a single commissioner, as opposed to
three, for example. I think that it is something to return
to.
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
11.
Division
No.
12
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause
53
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 58 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
| 
