Clause
82
Written
representations
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Robert
Neill:
We turn to a group of clauses, 82 to 84, which
relate to the conduct of the hearings. I do not want to repeat points
that have already been made. I just want to flag up that we have tabled
amendments to clauses 82 to 84 about the right to cross-examination. I
shall not ask for a vote on all of them, but when in due course we
reach clause 84, I shall ask for a vote on amendment No. 271. I hope
that makes things clear.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 82
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
84
Open-floor
hearings
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Robert
Neill:
There are two amendments. Amendment No. 271 relates
to the right to representation by counsel, solicitors or agent.
Amendment No. 272 relates to the ability to call and cross-examination
witnesses.
Dan
Rogerson:
I want to call a vote on amendment No.
319.
Amendment
proposed: No. 271, in clause 84,
page 39, line 12, after
representations, insert
whether personally, or by its
counsel, solicitor or agent.[Robert
Neill.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
11.
Division
No.
15
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
319, in clause 84, page 39, line 12, at end
add
(4) Any deadline fixed
under subsection (1) shall not be less than 56 days after the day on
which the date of the open-floor hearing is
announced..[Dan
Rogerson.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
11.
Division
No.
16
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 84 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
85
Hearings:
general
provisions
Amendment
made: No. 379, in clause 85, page 40, line 7, after
irrelevant insert , vexatious
or.[John
Healey.]
Clause
85, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
s
86
to 88
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
89
Timetable
for examining, and deciding or reporting on,
application
4
pm
John
Healey:
I beg to move amendment No. 380, in
clause 89, page 41, line 31, leave
out subsection
(2).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following: Government amendment No.
381.
Government new
clause 12Timetable for
decisions
.
John
Healey:
The clause deals with the timetable for examining
and determining cases under the new regime. It contains one or two
anomalies, which the
amendments seek to iron out. Together with new
clause 12, they are also designed to bring much greater clarity to the
Bill.
It may help
hon. Members if I explain the deadlines that apply to examinations,
reports and decisions. In a situation in which the panel is examining
and deciding a case, it will have six months to complete its
examination and three months to take the decision. In a situation in
which a single commissioner is examining a case, and then the council
is taking the decision, the single commissioner will have six months to
examine the case. There will be a further three months in which the
single commissioner must prepare the report for the council and the
council must take the
decision.
Mrs.
Lait:
How would that play if we had a situation
such as terminal 5 in which a statement by the then Deputy Prime
Minister prolonged the whole inquiry because he made a calculated or an
inadvertent statement about motorways? If a Secretary of State made a
statement during a decision-making time that materially changed the
circumstances, what would happen to the deadlines that the Minister is
trying to put in place?
John
Healey:
The hon. Lady must bear in mind that we will be in
an entirely different situation from the one that exists currently. The
IPC will only consider and determine applications in which a national
policy statement is already in place. It will be the national policy
statement that will be the primary framework within which any of the
applications will be considered and determined. Therefore, the
situation would not be the same as the example that she
cites.
An
application may also be submitted in circumstances in which the IPC is
set up and in which there is no national policy statement in place. In
those circumstances, the IPC will be responsible for examining an
application but will then report to the Secretary of State, who will
then take a decision. In that case, the panel or the single
commissioner will have up to six months to complete the examination
followed by three months to prepare their report and recommendations to
the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then have a further
three months to take the
decision.
Mr.
Curry:
Perhaps my chronology is wrong, but given the
Ministers timeline, does it take longer for a hearing under a
single commissioner to be completed than one under a panel? I thought
that the idea of a single commissioner was to do the smaller things
quickly.
John
Healey:
No. If the right hon. Gentleman consults the
Official Report tomorrow, he will see that the time limits are
exactly the same. It will take longer if the IPCwhether a
single commissioner or a panelis conducting an examination but
has to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who will then
take the decision. That will add a further three months to the
process.
Mr.
Curry:
Does the Minister accept that if one is to have a
single commissioner to consider what might be a small but crucial
scheme that links bits of the network, it is curious that it should
take as long as appointing a full panel? I thought the whole idea was
to get on with the job.
John
Healey:
I am not entirely certain what the right hon.
Gentlemans problem is. I am describing the limits that will
apply to each stage of the process. I am not prescribing how long each
stage will take. He may be right that the rather more straightforward
casesones being considered by a single commissionermay
not take as long as others, but the limits will be the same.
There is a
provision for the chair of the commission to extend the deadlines for
examination, for reporting to the Secretary of State or for decision,
where the deadlines bear on the commission. In such circumstances, the
chair of the commission will be obliged to notify the Secretary of
State of his decision and the reasons for it, and set them out in the
commissions annual report. If the Secretary of State is the
decision maker, he, too, may extend the deadline for the decision. In
such circumstances, he is obliged to give reasons for that decision and
must lay a report before Parliament explaining what has been
done.
I hope that my
explanation has been helpful and that hon. Members accept that the
amendments are useful additions.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 381, in clause 89, page 41, line 35, at end
insert
(3A) In a case
where the Examining authority is required to make a report to the
Secretary of State under section 66(2)(b) or 75(2)(b), the Examining
authority is under a duty to make its report by the end of the period
of 3 months beginning with the day after the deadline for completion of
its examination of the application..[John
Healey.]
Clause
89
, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
90 and
91
ordered
to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
92
Interpretation
of Chapter 4: interested party and other
expressions
Robert
Neill:
I beg to move amendment No. 278, in
clause 92, page 42, line 17, at
end insert
(aa) the person
has an interest in land to which the application
relates,.
This
is a straightforward amendment, which is intended to clarify the
definition of interested party. It would include anyone
with an interest in land to which the application relates. One can well
envisage circumstances in which the occupation of the land is different
from a legal interest in it. The legal interests in land may be
complex, perhaps being held in some form of trust, and it seems right
and proper that people who might have a proprietary interest affected
by landthe impacts are fairly obviousshould be included
as interested parties for the purposes of the
clause
Mr.
Curry:
Tenants and
landlords.
Robert
Neill:
That is the obvious example. The tenant may have a
view, and the landlord may want to put forward a different
consideration. It seems right and proper that everyone should be
included in that consideration.
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman has been clear and eloquent in
the way in which he has pressed the argument generally in the
Committee. I understand the reason for his concern. I hope that I can
assure him that it is the Governments intention similarly to
protect those interests, but that the amendment is not necessary to
achieve that. Let me try to do
that.
The clause
already includes a provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe
persons as being statutory parties, who will, therefore, automatically
be interested parties. We intend that such people, with an interest in
land that the applicant proposes to acquire, should be prescribed as
statutory parties for the purposes of the regulations that we intend to
make under the clause. I hope that being clear and categorical about
that matter has given the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks,
and that he will not press the amendment to a
vote.
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No.
382, in clause 92, page 42, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of
line 32 and insert
(4) A
representation is a relevant representation for the purposes of
subsection (1) to the extent
that
(a) it is a
representation about the
application,
(b) it is made to
the Commission in the prescribed form and
manner,
(c) it is received by
the Commission no later than the deadline that applies under section 50
to the person making it,
(d) it
contains material of a prescribed description,
and
(e) it does not
contain.
No.
383, in
clause 92, page 42, line 36, leave
out and and insert
or.
No.
384, in
clause 92, page 42, line 37, after
is insert vexatious
or.
No. 151,
in
clause 92, page 43, line 4, leave
out district council and insert county council,
or district
council,.
No.
152, in clause 92, page 43, leave out lines
5 and 6.[John
Healey.]
Clause
92, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
93
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|