Planning Bill


[back to previous text]

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 ]
AYES
Curry, rh Mr. David
Jones, Mr. David
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Neill, Robert
Rogerson, Dan
NOES
Betts, Mr. Clive
Clark, Paul
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Ennis, Jeff
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Healey, John
Michael, rh Alun
Mole, Chris
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Watts, Mr. Dave
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 ]
AYES
Curry, rh Mr. David
Jones, Mr. David
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Neill, Robert
Rogerson, Dan
NOES
Betts, Mr. Clive
Clark, Paul
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Ennis, Jeff
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Healey, John
Michael, rh Alun
Mole, Chris
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Watts, Mr. Dave
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 12—Timetable 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 Minister’s 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 IPC—whether a single commissioner or a panel—is 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. Gentleman’s 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 cases—ones being considered by a single commissioner—may 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 commission’s 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 land—the impacts are fairly obvious—should 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 Government’s 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.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 25 January 2008