Planning Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. It was brought to my attention that I gave out some potentially misleading information about the proposed harbours threshold in Tuesday’s debate on amendments Nos. 81 and 82.

I referred in my response to the analysis and modelling carried out by the Department which supported the proposed thresholds. I now understand that, while analysis was done through broad assessments before the proposed thresholds were set, it did not include any formal modelling. Modelling carries a specific technical meaning that does not apply in this case.

I hope that that clarification is helpful to the Committee, in the interest of setting the record straight. I apologise if my comment caused any misunderstanding. I have written to Sir John, the Clerk and the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend, East and for Beckenham.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I previously raised the matter of the Welsh framework clauses that are to be included in the Bill. I understand from discussions via the usual channels that it is now proposed that the new clauses will not be produced until towards the end of the discussion of the Bill. My concern is that the new framework powers may have an impact on other provisions that have already been discussed. I seek your guidance Mr. Illsley, as to whether that is a proper method of proceeding, given the impact it may well have had on previous discussions.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention and correction.

With regard to the Welsh clauses, I am advised that as there are no new clauses on that matter yet, it is not a point of order for me. However, I am sure that the Government will have noted what the hon. Member for Clwyd, West said, and perhaps discussions through the usual channels might elicit further information. Unfortunately, it is not a point of order for me.

Clause 38

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I have a brief question. We have agreed to amendments that add county councils to the clause. The thought crosses my mind as to why unitary and metropolitan local authorities are not listed as well. If the Minister gives a quick answer to that point, I will be happy to move on.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Of course I will. This issue was touched on when it was raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon in an earlier debate. The short answer is that, for the purposes of legislation, those authorities are already covered under the councils that are included in the Bill. Our concern was about two-tier areas, where county councils are also involved. That is why we tabled the amendments.

Clause 39

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 170, in clause 39, page 19, line 5, at end insert ‘, or adjacent land’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 171, in clause 39, page 19, line 8, at end insert ‘adjacent land, or’.

No. 172, in clause 39, page 19, line 10, at end insert ‘adjacent land, or’.

No. 173, in clause 39, page 19, line 11, at end insert ‘or adjacent land’.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and back to our deliberations about various clauses, where they will appear and the important issues under consideration.

The amendment would add “adjacent land” to the provisions of the clause. We are talking not about loft conversions, but about fairly major developments. It may be clearly understood by most that people with an interest in property and land adjoining a development will be consulted, but I am not sure that the clause is clear enough about who should be involved in the consultation.

The amendment would ensure that the provisions for people who have any of the interests set out in the clause because of land that is directly affected also apply to those who have an interest in neighbouring land. Clearly, there will be differences in what counts as adjacent land. If there is a large holding, adjacent land could be a considerable distance away from the development or it could be relatively close. I want to explore whether the ministerial team can justify not including the amendment, in the hope that anybody who will be affected by such a development will have the opportunity to be fully involved in the consultation.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Welcome back, Mr. Illsley. You sound a lot better than you did on Tuesday.

I will add some comments in support of the amendment. We have made it clear that we are concerned that consultation is as wide and proper as possible. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that anybody who could be understood to have an interest in the development is consulted and can make representations. On that basis, we support it.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I hope that I can give the sort of explanation that has been asked for and that the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Beckenham will see that the amendment is not necessary to meet their concerns.

In addition to clause 42 on the duty to consult the local community, clauses 37 to 39 set out a duty to consult people and bodies that would be affected by a development. That includes local authorities and anybody who might be entitled to a claim for compensation or for nuisance. Where a development would have a material detrimental effect on adjacent land, those with an interest will automatically be consulted.

As the Committee is aware, there is a broad power to prescribe statutory consultees. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe will be interested to know that we will specify statutory consultees for certain sorts of infrastructure—we had the same argument about local transport authorities in our previous sitting.

The regulations will ensure that those bodies that should be consulted will be consulted, although we will not require consultation if they are unlikely to have an interest. In drawing up the draft regulations, I will ensure that we consider the points made by members of this Committee.

The hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy were concerned about whether those living close to a development that could be detrimental would be consulted. The answer is that under common law, people in possession of property—landowners or tenants—are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their land. If someone interferes with that quiet enjoyment by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends beyond the boundaries of the property on which that activity is taking place, the affected party may be able to claim on the grounds of nuisance.

Clause 35(5)(c) provides that such people should be consulted. Together with other provisions in the Bill, it will capture the vast majority of people about whom the hon. Member for North Cornwall is concerned. I hope that that reassures hon. Members.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. However, he has not reassured me. I am clear that the clause sets out specific definitions of what constitutes a nuisance and he said that it would capture the vast majority of people affected, but we need to legislate for everyone.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I was conscious that we should not double back over ground that we have already covered, but people living in the vicinity who would not be statutory consultees will be included in the pre-application consultation and be able to put their views to the promoter, who will carry out the publicity. They will also have the opportunity to put their views to the infrastructure planning commission when it considers the application. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands and accepts that point.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

There are clear provisions in clause 39 for people who have an interest in the land, but people who are not resident in the area may also have an interest. The same provisions should also apply to those who have adjacent land who may not be directly aware of what is going on in the community, although they have a long-standing interest because of ownership of adjacent land or other rights to it.

The Government have felt it necessary to apply the provisions to those who have a direct interest in the land affected, which implies that things may be going on above and beyond the standard consultation. If that is so, and extra effort is being made to ensure that pre-application publicity reaches people who may not reside in the area but have an interest in the land, I am concerned that the proposal is not extended to people who have an interest in adjacent land. I am thinking of cases of people or associations who own patches of land that they do not visit very often, therefore they would not see notices or publicity in the local paper. The Minister has not reassured me on those matters.

Clause 40

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

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.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

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.

Clause 41

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

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.

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Clause 42

Clause 43

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I have a quick query on the proposal, Mr. Illsley. Has the Minister considered the use of the internet under the duty to publicise the application?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that it will be open to the promoters to use the internet as part of their publicity channels and as a way of consulting the public and other interested parties.

Clause 44

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I beg to move amendment No. 326, in clause 44, page 20, line 37, at end insert

‘and to a statement of impacts and mitigation made under section (Duty to identify and mitigate adverse impacts).’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 327, in clause 80, page 37, line 27, at end insert

‘, but in doing so must consider any statement of impacts and mitigation prepared under section (Duty to identify and mitigate adverse impacts).’.

Amendment No. 329, in clause 80, page 37, line 36, at end insert—

‘(b) to consider whether and how the range and comprehensiveness of the issues identified in any statement of impacts and mitigations prepared under section (Duty to identify and mitigate adverse impacts) and mitigations proposed thereto should be examined.’.

New clause 8—Duty to identify and mitigate adverse impacts

‘(1) Further to the applicant’s duties under section 42, the applicant must prepare a statement of impacts and mitigation identifying those effects of the proposed application that have been identified in response to the consultation under section 42 as adverse to the interests of respondents and the steps (if any) that the applicant proposes to take to respond to those impacts.

(2) For each instance of an adverse impact, the statement of impacts and mitigation must set out the applicant’s proposal for mitigating action to be taken by the applicant, or must state that no mitigating action is to be taken.

(3) A statement of impacts and mitigation may propose no mitigating action where it appears to the applicant that—

(a) the adverse impact is insignificant and mitigating action is not warranted, or

(b) mitigating action would be unreasonable due to disproportionate cost, adverse collateral effects on other interests or because it would be otherwise not in the public interest.

(4) The Commission must provide guidance to the applicants on the factors to be considered in identifying impacts and mitigating actions and on circumstances in which no mitigating action may be taken pursuant to subsection (3).

(5) In preparing the statement of impacts and mitigation, the applicant must have regard to—

(a) any relevant response received by the applicant to consultation under section 44(2), and

(b) any guidance given by the Commission under subsection (4).’.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I am pleased to hear that attendance at our Committee sittings is having a beneficial effect on your health, Mr. Illsley.

In my previous amendments, I raised the issue of the Secretary of State rather than the commission being responsible for the ultimate decision on applications for national infrastructure projects, which the Government may have thought was contrary to their intentions. However, these amendments go very much with the grain of what they intend.

The Royal Town Planning Institute has been helpful to me in drafting the amendments and helping me to understand their general intention, which is to enhance the Bill to ensure that communities have a genuine opportunity to identify the impact of proposals at the earliest possible stage, to comment on them and to raise concerns about siting and design. It is relatively easy to make changes to projects at an early stage; any adverse impact identified by the community can be laid down very clearly at that point and the applicants must respond formally to it.

Amendment No. 326 relates to the pre-application stage. Pre-application consultation is essential; issues that may result in a fight at a later stage, with the two sides hardly listening to each other, can be dealt with in time to reach a compromise before things go any further. That would improve the entire process.

Communities should have the opportunity to identify issues at the earliest stage. The applicant must respond to those concerns formally, and if mitigation is not possible, explain why. Despite the importance that many planning authorities now attach to pre-consultation on ordinary planning applications, all too often those processes are neither effective nor real, as we as individual MPs have seen. They are sometimes little more than a sham. Although the community raises concerns, the applicant might hardly attempt to respond in any meaningful way and sometimes ignores them by talking about anything other than those concerns when responding to the planning committee. The amendments, therefore, would require the applicant to respond to such concerns in a proper way. They would not, of course, have to agree with those concerns, but they would have to answer them.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and think that he is on to something important, but I would ask him to explain one thing. Subsection (3)(b) of new clause 8 states that

“mitigating action would be unreasonable due to disproportionate cost, adverse collateral effects on other interests or because it would be otherwise not in the public interest.”

In the event that the mitigating action is not taken, does the application fail?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

No. In the end, the issues of whether the applicant has taken reasonable steps to mitigate and why an applicant does not feel that mitigation is possible because of cost or other reasons are matters for the commission to take on board and determine. In the amendments, we are trying to structure the concerns of the community and the responses to those concerns and make the applicant respond formally to them by saying either that they can be mitigated, or if they cannot, why not. Of course, the commission will have that information to enable it to make a better decision and can, in the end, do so with conditions, such as deciding that mitigation is necessary, despite what the applicant has said.

That leads us to amendments Nos. 327 and 328, which are linked together appropriately. The process of identifying the issues from the community and the applicant’s response with regard to mitigation or non-mitigation continues beyond the initial pre-application consultation into the commission’s hearings. That process continues in the commission’s initial consideration, as laid out in clause 80, and then in the first meetings at which the commission brings the applicant and the main objectors together.

At those stages, the process of identifying the impact that the community is concerned about and deciding for or against mitigation for the applicant are considered as part of the commission’s initial view and the initial hearing that it holds. Having had the first meetings and the formal hearings, that process takes those issues through into the later processes of the commission’s consideration.

The Minister might have views about the appropriateness of that process and the wording of the amendments, but they are an attempt to ensure that communities see that there is less value in simply waiting and using objections as obstructions later in the process, and that there is every benefit in raising objections at the earliest possible stage, when concerns over details can be dealt with more easily and when the applicant is likely to be more responsive in dealing with those concerns. That also means that there is less benefit in simply trying to obstruct, rather than engage with, those opposed, and that applies to the applicant as well. There is much more benefit in trying to engage with the community and address concerns, rather than trying to ignore them and hope that somehow they will go away, be pushed to one side or not be properly focused on.

It would be helpful to target and focus not only at the pre-application stage, but in the remaining stages of the commission’s initial consideration and at the formal hearings themselves. With the amendments and the new clause, I am trying to lay down a process that has two fundamental objectives: one is to make the Government’s approach more effective and focused on the issues of real concern, and the other is to improve the perception, and the reality, that the community is involved. Any concerns that the community has should not simply be pushed to one side and ignored, but given proper attention and a proper response.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

This group of proposals is exceedingly important. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe for getting to the Clerks before we did on this issue. Unless the Minister comes up with a miracle, I will be pressing the amendments that I tabled. We think, as does the hon. Gentleman, that if we are to make any new system work, the duty to consult must be widened to include the duty to mitigate.

The best developers already seek to mitigate. I referred earlier to the Kent Wildlife Trust’s negotiation on a grid application. It managed to achieve the realignment of cable routes, to have the work timed to avoid the impacts on internationally important populations of migratory birds and protect breeding marsh harriers. It received a commitment to enhance the works to encourage biodiversity. It achieved those things because of its ability to negotiate with a responsible applicant before the inquiry.

My thinking on this area is influenced by a case in which a bottleneck was to be relieved on our overcrowded railways when Eurostar came through my constituency. There was a need to unblock the bottleneck at a point where the railway crossed a busy road with a station immediately on the other side.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Shortlands.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for identifying the famous Shortlands, because I will be describing it in great detail. This case is a model of how such projects should be dealt with. Not only was there the busy road and the bridge with the station on the far side, we had green open space, some social housing, some detached houses and blocks of flats. There was just about every aspect that would concern a local population.

What was so impressive was that before the application was put in for the underpass that was required, consultants were brought in by Railtrack—rather than Network Rail. Well done to Railtrack for having had the foresight to do that. Before the application was put in, the consultants knew all the trees, animals, and flora and fauna in the open space.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

By name.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Indeed, they probably christened many of them. The consultants had also worked out exactly when the work needed to be done, what impact it would have on the local residents and how to mitigate that impact. For instance, as the social housing was closest to where the heaviest work would take place, and by and large, railways are mended at weekends, the residents were offered money to go away for those weekends. For example, the developers would say, “We will pay for you to go away in weeks two, five, nine and 12.” The work was actually so fascinating that very few people took up the offer to go away and instead watched what was going on.

The residents of the blocks of flats were asked what could be done to mitigate the bad impact. Most of the blocks decided that they wanted secure parking, which is perhaps a reflection of the residents’ concerns. With the owners of the detached houses, it was decided what needed to be done, and remedies were put in place. The local council was the only objector when it came to the planning inquiry, as it would have liked a widened road at that stage. But, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, that is one of those areas where there could be no agreement, so it went to the planning inquiry and was dealt with speedily.

Dare I say that the only delay occurred in the Department for Transport, which also happened to be led by the then Deputy Prime Minister, and we were all agog at the speed with which he made his decision on that planning application. If it can be done in such a complex situation, I do not see why it cannot be done for every planning application. I am sure that that is what the Minister is hoping the responsible developers working on infrastructure projects will do, but unless he can reassure me that precisely that high quality of mitigation and resolution of problems before they get to a planning inquiry is covered by the term “consultation”, I will be keen for my hon. Friends to support the amendments.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am fascinated by the topographical detail of my hon. Friend’s constituency, but would she not accept that there is a close analogy between how effective consultation can work, and ineffective consultation cannot, in the transfer of social housing to new landlords? Where the council does its work well and everyone is consulted, often those transfers go through because people’s fears have been allayed, but where that is not done effectively, a no vote is often provoked. The irony is that a no vote is often to the detriment of the tenants themselves.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I could not agree more. This may not contribute towards getting the discussion back into order, but my constituents were also the beneficiaries of social housing transfer early on: Broomleigh housing association is streets ahead of many associations in the service that it delivers to its residents. That shows how good consultation can work.

However, on the subject of the planning applications that we are discussing, we want not only to consult but to resolve problems, so that the number of objections to the applications can be limited, and the whole process speeded up. In a sense, I think that the Department has missed a trick by wishing to go down the quango route, rather than improving the way that the current system can be made to work.

The other implicit concern is that, where a statutory agency is the applicant, as I understand it, it is already somewhat constrained in how it can negotiate on compensation when it needs to buy up land property, as is the case for the Highways Agency. A closer look at that area is also needed. Obviously, the private sector can do deals, but it is more difficult for statutory or regulated organisations to do so.

I suspect that the result of not only wide, good, willing consultation but mitigation is that the front-end loading cost probably equals the back-end costs involved in application, challenge, judicial review, and all the other lengthy costs that have so dragged out our planning system. Within the system as it stands, if we could get that form of consultation and mitigation in place, the system would automatically speed up. That is why I support our amendments so strongly.

I hope that hon. Members understand that we feel very strongly that the Minister should accept the amendments and that we will invite the Committee to vote on all of them so we can at least try to get the Government to understand what we need in the planning system—whether or not we change it.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I very much welcome the fact that hon. Members have tabled the amendments and new clause 8. I congratulate the hon. Lady on finding something positive to say about that popular Conservative legacy to the nation—Railtrack. She did well to think of something.

The new clause and amendments get to the heart of the process of pre-application consultation. There have obviously been many areas of disagreement, and further matters of disagreement will arise about how that should operate and be improved. However, there has been agreement that the process of pre-application consultation is a positive aspect of the Bill and will ensure that the handling of such important planning applications is conducted more efficiently and effectively. Therefore, it is even more important to ensure that the process is absolutely right and that, acting on the Minister’s assurances that the process will be effective and will reach everybody in the community, problems identified by the local community are taken on board by the developer. Even if there cannot be an agreed resolution, at least that has been stated up front. The new clause and amendments would be particularly useful additions and I hope that the Minister accepts them. If he does not, I will certainly add my support to that of other hon. Members in seeking to make him do so.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I add my strong support to the amendments. It is sensible, it will add considerably to the streamlining of the process, and it will give great reassurance to residents who might be affected by large-scale developments. My hon. Friend mentioned a positive experience that was local to her. I would like to mention an example in my constituency which was determined only this week: an application for the inevitable wind farm. As the Committee has probably gathered, there are a lot of applications for wind farms in my constituency. This one was for a large wind farm—not quite as large as those that would be determined under the new procedure, but nevertheless a significant development. In that case, there was grave concern about the potential impact of the development on flooding. A flood risk assessment was not done and the proposal was that flooding should be dealt with when granting planning permission by inserting a suitable condition to the extent that the developer should take all necessary steps to address the flood risk.

That was clearly and understandably completely unacceptable to local residents. Considerable reassurance would have been given to local residents if, as is proposed by the new clause, the developer was under a positive obligation to address the concerns of local residents about flood impact and if applicants had to state to the planning committee what they intended to do to address those concerns—for example, in terms of flood impact assessments and the necessary works resulting from those. As my hon. Friend said, that would have given considerable reassurance to local residents, speeded up the procedure and taken an important element of local opposition out of the equation.

In discussing the new clause, I feel that my hon. Friend and I have illustrated opposite sides of the coin. The net effect of both of our experiences is that if a developer can address local concerns at an early stage and can show to the planning authority what proposals he is making for addressing those concerns, we will have not only considerably more contented residents but a faster and more streamlined application procedure. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I took at face value the hon. Lady’s assertion that she wanted to make progress. I understand that she feels strongly about this. I also understand that she wishes to dwell at some length on the example from her constituency. As constituency MPs, we all understand that.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

It will not get me a headline.

Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) rose—

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I do not know what the deadlines are for the hon. Lady’s local papers, but 10 am on Thursday may be a little late for this week. The hon. Gentleman, who obviously competes with her for headlines and coverage in the local press, wishes to get material for his press release, and so I give way to him.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I just wanted to point out for the sake of completeness that my hon. Friend was entirely correct, not least because the railway line at Shortlands is the boundary between her constituency and mine.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I feel a joint press release to the South London Press coming on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe was absolutely right when he said that the pre-application stage in our proposals and the Bill is essential. He made a good general argument for that new stage when he said that it should discourage objections being used at later stages simply to obstruct progress in the consideration of any application and should encourage those with concerns or objections to raise them earlier in the process, when there may be more of an opportunity to consider them.

Clause 44 is therefore important because it requires promoters to have regard to responses to the consultation. It is backed by clause 32, which requires that an application must also be accompanied by a consultation report which, among other things, shows how the promoter has taken into account the points and the results of the consultation. It is precisely to deal with my hon. Friend’s worry that promoters may not respond to concerns that have been raised in a proper way that clauses 44 and 32 are in the Bill.

Showing how a promoter has taken into account the results of the consultation would include any changes the applicant has made to mitigate the effects of the original proposal. The hon. Lady, in the example of Shortlands—backed to the hilt by the hon. Gentleman—and in the example of the Kent Wildlife Trust demonstrated the value in the pre-application duty to consult, but she did not make the case for the duty to mitigate or for a prescriptive requirement to report on all the identified impacts to be on the face of the Bill.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I did.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

But I am not convinced by it.

To reinforce the combined operation of clauses 44 and 32, there is also the duty for the promoter to have regard to any guidance that he may be given about pre-application consultation by the Secretary of State or the commission. Moreover, the commission must ultimately be satisfied that the pre-application consultation has been done properly before it accepts any application from a promoter. There is a power to guide and advise. There is also a pretty substantial point at which the commission may decide that the promoter has not done the job properly and so declines the application.

That reinforces the measure with a strong incentive for the promoter to take the pre-application process seriously and to get it right within the framework. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it is the role of the commission during the inquiry to consider the application in light both of the national statements and of any potential local impacts, including appropriate mitigation of those impacts that the promoter may be proposing to take as part of the application. As he said, this is the proper role for the infrastructure planning commission in its decision-taking role over an application. Where local impacts should be mitigated, the commission can set out the actions to be taken by a promoter as part of any subsequent consent order.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

How local is local? Much in the news at the moment is talk of a Severn barrage, which would have impacts for two sides of a huge estuary, and for miles east and west, and even north and south. What would be a proper definition of local in pre-consultation on a Severn barrage?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I think that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that a proper interpretation of “appropriate consultation” and “local” will vary from application to application. I know that he was not with the Committee for some of our earlier proceedings, but if he looks at the Hansard for our debate on clause 39 earlier this morning, he will see that we dealt, not least off the back of some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, with some of the concerns and issues around that point.

Finally, the combination of the two clauses in this Bill, together with the capacity for the commission and the Secretary of State to issue guidance, rightly sets out this pre-application stage as a new, required stage in the process of preparing and submitting applications for major projects. It sets out the duties for consultation, but avoids being over-prescriptive in the detail that is required in primary legislation.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

May I go back to what my hon. Friend thinks is the requirement of the legislation as it stands, particularly the second part of clause 44? It talks about the applicant having to have regard to any relevant responses. Does that mean that at that stage the applicant will have to go through the responses from any objectors from the community in general and reply in detail as to how they will mitigate those objections, or explain why no mitigation is necessary? Is there likely to be further ministerial guidance—he mentioned that when we were talking about the commission—once the legislation is passed to flesh out and enhance what is on the face of the Bill?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The answer to my hon. Friend’s second question is yes. There is also likely to be, I suspect, guidance from the commission, although that will be a matter for the commission.

The answer to my hon. Friend’s first question is that there is the duty to consult in the pre-application phase; there is the duty to take into account in the way that it is done any advice and guidance that may be issued by the Secretary of State or the commission; and there is the duty, as part of the application itself, to demonstrate, through a report on the consultation, not just that the consultation has been undertaken, but how the promoter has taken into account the points that have been raised and the results of the consultation. That may include any changes that the applicant has made to mitigate the effects of the original proposal. However, it would not be right to include what the hon. Lady argued for, which is a duty to mitigate.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I shall still press the amendment to a vote, because while the Minister has done a valiant job in trying to explain that an applicant will have to mitigate, it would be much clearer if that requirement were in the Bill. I can foresee a situation in which there is confusion between consultation and mitigation. Until the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe intervened, I thought that the Minister was going down that road.

Under the clause, any mitigation will potentially be decided at the inquiry stage by the IPC, rather than having been agreed to and put in place before the applicant comes to the IPC. Agreeing on mitigation before the inquiry would be infinitely more sensible. I am sure that responsible applicants would not object to a process under which mitigation must be put in place and signed off with the interested parties and then reported to the inquiry. It would then not be an issue for the inquiry.

The other area that strikes me and which the Minister did not address is the position of statutory bodies, such as the Highways Agency, compared with those in the private sector. As I understand it, such bodies are considerably more constrained in mitigation because of rules on the levels of compensation that they can pay. An awful lot of mitigation is about adequate compensation being agreed between the promoter and the individual who is affected. Many of the statutory organisations do not have the flexibility that private sector organisations have in settling such claims. Therefore, more problems will come before an inquiry than is necessary because of the rules that bind statutory organisations. On the grounds of best practice and of clarifying that consultation includes mitigation, I will press the amendment to a vote.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I thought that we were reaching a point at which some agreement was possible on what my hon. Friend said. He indicated that there will be further ministerial guidance on how the process will operate. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I understand him to be saying that under clause 44(2) there is no duty on the applicant to mitigate. However, when the applicant responds to the issues raised by the community in the pre-application consultation, he will have to explain where mitigation is thought to be appropriate and where mitigation is not possible, necessary or desirable. That will be a requirement on the applicant at that stage. That is the intention of the clause and it will be fleshed out further in the guidance to come. I am sure that the Minister will intervene if I am wrong. I understand that an explanation of why mitigation is or is not appropriate is part of clause 44(2), but that does not mean to say that there is not a duty to mitigate.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

My difficulty is that if mitigation is agreed before the inquiry, it can be reported that there is mitigation and that issue will not be part of the inquiry. If the applicant has to say in what cases there is a potential for mitigation, that will absorb the time of the inquiry because it will open up the debate. If that can be closed down before the inquiry starts because it has been legally resolved, the inquiry will be speeded up. That is why mitigation is important in planning law in general, not just in the Bill.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

The hon. Lady was beginning to lose me. My assumption was that anything that comes out of the pre-application stage—the consultation—even if the applicant is saying, “Yes, I agree with the community’s concerns and I will mitigate,” will be carried forward into the IPC’s consideration of those matters. Of course it will. It will be taken on board in the application, which will be amended accordingly if the applicant decides to mitigate. That seems to be a given.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

The difference is this. If mitigation is agreed before the inquiry stage, the applicant can report that the matter has been resolved. It is therefore not an issue and will not delay the inquiry. If, however, the applicant says, “It is possible that we can mitigate in the following few cases,” it potentially becomes an issue for the inquiry.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Yes, but I am not sure how pressing the amendment to a Division improves that situation.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

There is a duty to mitigate.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

My understanding, and why in the end I certainly will not press my amendment to a vote, is that the Minister has said that he understands that although there is no duty in the Bill to mitigate, there will be a duty on the applicant to respond to concerns and objections raised as part of the pre-application consultation, and that will include both any indication of mitigation from the applicant and any indications that the applicant chooses not to mitigate, cannot mitigate or does not want to mitigate. As I understand it, that will be part of the response and that duty will be fleshed out further in guidance to come.

To bring this exchange to a conclusion, let me say that I am reassured by what the Minister said about the issues relating to mitigation and by the fact that there is further guidance to come on these matters both from Ministers and from the commission. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 45

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 232, in clause 45, page 21, line 10, leave out ‘The Commission may give advice’ and insert

‘The Secretary of State may, in connection with securing propriety, by regulations make provision about the giving of advice by an existing government body appointed for this purpose’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 233, in clause 45, page 21, line 15, leave out ‘Commission may not under subsection (1)’ and insert

‘body appointed by regulations under subsection (1) may not under that subsection’.

No. 234, in clause 45, page 21, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

No. 235, in clause 45, page 21, line 25, leave out ‘Commission’ and insert ‘appointed body’.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The amendments deal with a concern that was raised by, among others, the Campaign to Protect Rural England. It has also been raised with me by a number of practitioners in the field of planning inquiries. The giving of advice is of itself a reasonable, sensible thing. Provided that pre-application discussions on planning matters are transparent, it is sensible to encourage them because they can iron out difficulties, avoid time being wasted and prevent excessive costs. It is also important to ensure that advice is available to interested parties. Increasingly, it is important to recognise the need—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 233, in clause 45, page 21, line 15, leave out ‘Commission may not under subsection (1)’ and insert

‘body appointed by regulations under subsection (1) may not under that subsection’.

No. 234, in clause 45, page 21, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

No. 235, in clause 45, page 21, line 25, leave out ‘Commission’ and insert ‘appointed body’.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am delighted to see the Minister back in his place. I know that he has had a busy lunch time. We hope that he remains with us and is not reshuffled or promoted anywhere, after the multi-tasking he was doing on the lunch-time news. We do not want him to go until we have seen the guidance on the Welsh elements of the Bill. We hope that there will not be any drift in the Wales Office in preparing those, for obvious reasons.

To return to the point that I was making, the amendment relates to advice for potential applicants and others. I was discussing a concern that the Campaign to Protect Rural England raised in their written submissions, which has also been raised with us by a number of practitioners in the field.

It is not a problem with the giving of advice and assistance, as I hope that I have already made clear. I do not have any problem with greater use of pre-application discussions, for example, between applicants. It is sensible to involve other affected parties at that early stage, hence our reference to the great success of the Shortlands scheme in the London borough of Bromley, between the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and myself—just to eke out the press release.

The concern raised is over the propriety of the commission being the organisation to give that advice. That concern arises because, ultimately, the commission has to act as the decision maker in the process; it must be the holder of the ring. The commission must maintain the confidence both of applicants and of affected parties, for reasons that we have rehearsed at considerable length, and that I will not repeat.

Against that background, is there a risk that, if the commission is the giver of advice, its impartiality as the decision maker will be compromised? That is why we put forward in our amendment an alternative formulation and suggest that other Government agencies could happily provide that function.

For example, the Planning Inspectorate, the planning advisory service, and the advisory team for large applications already exist. If they were used, and we leave it open in our amendment as to which would be most convenient, there would be the advantage of ensuring that bodies discrete from the decision maker provided advice to applicants. There could not then be even any suggestion of discussions behind the scenes that might be misinterpreted by those who are affected and are unhappy at applications. It would enable the commission, if we are to have one, in spite of our reservations, to be more readily seen than Caesar’s wife in the matter, so to speak. In essence, that is the reason for the amendments. I hope that the Minister will realise that we are trying to be helpful to the work done by the commission.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Gentleman is right to probe that area, to be concerned about standards and propriety and to want to be sure that the commission’s process for giving advice is as clear and open as possible. I argue, however, that it is a good thing that it will be the commission giving advice about the process to potential applicants because its members will be experts on the application process for major infrastructure projects.

It is obviously of equal importance that any contact and discussion between the commission and potential applicants does not prejudice the decision-making process in any way, that it is seen not to do so and is accepted as not doing so. That is the purpose of the regulation-making power covering the commission’s role in giving advice, particularly with regard to the disclosure of that advice more widely and to the public.

By way of practical example, the regulations could require minutes of the commission’s meetings or the advice that it will give to potential applicants to be made available to all parties. The commission will, of course, be subject to freedom of information legislation and to the powers of the ombudsman over questions of administration.

I think that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will accept that there is rightly further work to do on the nature of appropriate advice, that it is probably better not to put it in primary legislation and that the regulation-making power is important. I hope that he will accept that that will help to ensure that it is clear to everyone that the commission acts impartially, openly, with complete propriety and that it will be seen to do so.

Given that the provision is underpinned by a commitment to make the process as transparent and unquestionably proper as possible, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing on the basis of that reassurance to wait until the details of the regulations are specified. In preparing those regulations, we will discuss and consult widely because that is the way that we are most likely to get a framework of regulations that meets his concerns and can command the confidence of those who want to see the commission acting properly.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with that and am reassured. I hope that in the consultation it might be possible to look, among other things, at how the bodies that I have mentioned and others operate. I am glad that he recognises the sensitivity and importance of the issue and, with that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 45, page 21, line 13, after ‘representations’, insert

‘including oral submissions and cross examination of witnesses’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in clause 79, page 37, line 23, at end add—

‘(4) Subject to subsection (3) above, nothing in this section shall restrict the rights of interested parties to make oral representations or cross-examine witnesses.’.

No. 328, in clause 80, page 37, line 36, at end insert

‘including receiving requests to be heard orally pursuant to section 84.’.

No. 21, in clause 82, page 38, line 19, leave out ‘is to’ and insert ‘may’.

No. 267, in clause 82, page 38, line 20, after ‘written’, insert ‘and oral’.

No. 22, in clause 82, page 38, line 20, at end insert

‘subject to the right of interested parties to make oral representations and cross-examine witnesses.’.

No. 268, in clause 82, page 38, line 20, at end insert

‘and the carrying out of a site visit’.

No. 269, in clause 83, page 38, line 42, after ‘representations’, insert

‘whether personally, or by its counsel, solicitor or agent’.

No. 270, in clause 83, page 38, line 42, at end insert

‘and to call and to cross-examine witnesses’.

No. 271, in clause 84, page 39, line 12, after ‘representations’, insert

‘whether personally, or by its counsel, solicitor or agent’.

No. 23, in clause 84, page 39, line 12, at end insert ‘and to cross-examine witnesses’.

No. 272, in clause 84, page 39, line 12, at end add

‘and to call and to cross-examine witnesses’.

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.’.

No. 24, in clause 85, page 39, line 23, leave out from beginning to second ‘the’ in line 24.

No. 273, in clause 85, page 39, leave out lines 23 to 25.

No. 88, in clause 85, page 39, line 25, at end insert

‘but where a local planning authority requests that a party be cross-examined, the Examining Authority will be obliged to grant the request;’.

No. 25, in clause 85, page 39, line 39, leave out subsection (7).

No. 274, in clause 85, page 39, line 43, leave out ‘exceptionally’.

No. 275, in clause 85, page 39, line 44, leave out ‘necessary’ and insert ‘appropriate’.

No. 276, in clause 87, page 40, line 45, at end insert ‘and’.

No. 277, in clause 87, page 41, line 3, leave out from ‘application’ to end of line 5.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It looks a bit of a mouthful, but essentially the point that we seek to deal with in this regard is an important one that we will return to elsewhere in the Bill. We have already flagged up the fundamental importance of the ability to have oral submissions and the cross-examinations of witnesses, and we differ with the Government on that. I know that the Minister has said, in relation to other aspects of the Bill, that there will be scope for the commission to allow cross-examination and oral submissions in certain cases. I take all that on board, but we do not regard it as adequate. This issue is so fundamental that it should be a right, not something that is at the behest of the commission. That is the fundamental difference between our position and the Government’s. The reason for this is profound: people could be affected not only in their personal lives, but in their livelihoods, their professional situations and their proprietary interests in land.

In certain circumstances, the commission will be able to issue a development consent order that includes the compulsory acquisition of land. It seems to us absolutely inconceivable that a person confronted with that possibility should not have the right—not just the discretion—to present their case in the way that they choose. They should be able to do so themselves or through the representative of their choice, to ask the questions that they want to ask and to test any evidence that is called to support the proposal that could deprive them of their land.

Where we do agree, we are anxious to stress it. Subject to that right, the commission should be able to control cross-examination through the test of relevance, as do planning inspectors. As will be remembered, we have already rehearsed our alternative construct. If policy issues are decided in the national policy statements, it will not be necessary to go down the route of the terminal 5 inquiry, which had the longueurs of repeated cross-examination trying to reopen the issue of whether there should even be an airport.

In our judgment, at the application stage, there should be a debate simply about the merits of the particular site. That could be controlled in the same way as it is in other judicial circumstances. I will not bang on about this point because we have made it before. We are sorry that the Government have not gone down this route, but if that test were applied, the cross-examination need not be oppressive, repetitious or the cause of the inquiry being dragged out.

It is important that there is a balance between seeking efficiency in the process and respecting the rights of individuals. The right to a fair hearing has been enshrined in common law almost since mediaeval times. It is also consistent with human rights legislation. The Secretary of State has signed the usual certificate saying that the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights. However, we suspect that if there is no clear right to cross-examination in the Bill, it will be a potential charter for more and more challenge through judicial review. In terms of planning, it will be the usual lawyers who are making the money. That is not a threat, but a statement of reality. Those who feel aggrieved and do not think that they can get a fair crack of the whip through the commission process will feel pressed to go to court to seek a remedy.

To use an analogy, the Government are falling for a false economy. They think that they will save money by making the process quicker by this prohibition. We think that it may make the situation worse through the amount of challenges and the damage that will be done to the commission’s reputation for being independent. That is why we tabled the amendment, which is mirrored in other amendments that we are proposing throughout the Bill. It would ensure that even at that early stage in the process, part of the advice to the applicant or, crucially, to other interested parties is about making representations on the application. The Bill should spell out explicitly the right to make oral submissions and cross-examine. That is the point of principle that we seek to flag up through the amendment.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I support the hon. Gentleman’s argument for the protection of the right to cross-examination. He has a lot more experience of that than me, but I have appeared before a planning inspector as a witness on behalf of a dedicated band of constituents. I was up against two barristers: one from the Environment Agency and one from a water company. It was great fun.

I stand to speak to amendment No. 319, which I tabled.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s previous involvement in the process, but does he accept that having fun is not one of the objectives set out for the IPC in the application process?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

It may not be the intention, but it will be a happy by-product.

I return to the issue of the time that objectors have to participate in various stages of the process. Based on our previous discussion about the pre-application stage, I appreciate that the Minister said there would be an incentive for the applicant to ensure that the consultation is as thorough as possible to prevent later delay in the application stage. I can see his point, although it pains me to admit it.

At the application stage, however, it certainly is not in the interests of the applicant for the objectors to have plenty of time to put their point across. Amendment No. 319 therefore refers specifically to the period in which any potential objector has the right to notify the IPC or the applicant that they want to be heard at an open-floor hearing. That is a crucial part of the process for the objectors, because it is where they can get their point across and make their voice heard; if for any reason, the time scale was not appropriate, it would mean that they missed out on that chance. That would be hugely to the detriment of any sense of fairness in ensuring that the application was considered properly, and anyone who had that experience would be very disillusioned with the process.

I hope the Minister agrees that we should consider a longer time frame for this crucial issue to ensure that people can appeal to have their views heard at an open-floor hearing.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I will speak briefly to amendment No. 88. I am not convinced by the argument that everybody and anybody should have the right to cross-examine. It has been suggested that that right exists now under planning law, but the vast majority of planning applications are considered by the planning committees of local authorities, where the right to cross-examine does not exist. Indeed, the format of procedure that the commission is likely to adopt will be adopted by committees now. Individuals will be allowed to state their case and they may be asked questions by members of the committee—a form of cross-examination—who will then reach a view.

It is up to the commissioners whether they adopt that form or allow cross-examination, as the proposal states. However, a category in the interpretation clause 92 at the end of chapter 4 specifically defines a relevant local authority as a recognised “interested party” throughout the process of the hearings.

To meet concerns about the potential removal of democratic accountability and the voice of the people, my amendment recognises that the commission will conduct the hearings as it so chooses—there is no automatic right for everyone to cross-examine—but that representations from local authorities should be treated differently because they are different and distinct. Therefore, if a local authority representing its community in a democratic, elected way, asks for the right to cross-examine, it should be allowed to do so because it is a different and distinct organisation, as the Bill recognises.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

We discussed most of the issues and principles that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised at some length in our debates on parts 1 and 2. I also dealt in detail with some of his concerns in the memorandum that I submitted to the Committee two days ago. I shall try to deal with a couple of the main points that he made when moving his amendment. He is right in his observations about the present system and the extent to which there are rights at present. As I have said, rather than simply importing the 2005 rules relating to major infrastructure and basing a system entirely on them, we are trying to create a new system of examination for considering nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Therefore, the Bill sets out a way of proceeding for the IPC that strengthens the pre-examination process; tries to identify and deal with issues that might be contained in the proposals up front rather than leave them to be argued over at great length in the inquiry stage; draws on a national policy statement so that matters of policy do not become the meat and drink of the inquiry; makes much greater use of written representations while ensuring that oral hearings will be heard when necessary; and aims to test, probe and assess the evidence through direct questions led by the IPC rather than by cross-examination. Such cross-examination is normally conducted by hired third-hands and lawyers who are only available to those with deep pockets, particularly in long inquiries. We have already seen and discussed the situation where even a local authority—the borough of Hillingdon—ran out of money and was unable to maintain its involvement in one of the Heathrow inquiries.

To be clear about the new rules and the suggestion that they somehow will not provide a tried, tested and established system and that we should simply use what is currently in place of the IPC, I suggest that no major infrastructure project has yet been dealt with under those rules. As we sit at the start of 2008, we can anticipate that it might well be 2009 before the first major infrastructure project is put forward as an application, and that would be on the table as a matter to be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate under the current system. Therefore, it is not as if we have a tried, tested and established model that we could be confident is up to the job.

Cross-examination might have a place in hearings and can be a useful method for testing and probing evidence and ensuring that people’s concerns are properly established. However, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman, to somehow equate the right to be heard and have views registered with the right to cross-examination is to make a profound mistake.

Also, cross-examination has its problems. It can be costly and time consuming, and it can be difficult to estimate how long that part of the process might take. It can add to the uncertainty for all involved in any inquiry for which it is the major method for trying to establish the facts. It can be legalistic, adversarial and, therefore, intimidating, particularly for ordinary members of the public who perhaps have neither the experience nor the access to the sort of resources that are required for professional cross-examination.

For those reasons, it is better to have an IPC process that allows for cross-examination but is nevertheless essentially predicated on the view that the commission will lead the evidence testing in a similar way to how Select Committees conduct their business, with which we are familiar as Members of the House. Of course, the commission will also have access, should it require it, to additional expert advice.

On the subject of those who may be subject to compulsory purchase orders as part of the consent order regime and process for a major project, again we are taking a slightly different approach to the current system, but one that helps us to achieve our objectives while ensuring that there is sufficient reassurance and rights for those who might be affected. First, the Bill explicitly gives parties subject to CPOs the ability to trigger an oral hearing, and a right to be heard at that hearing. Secondly, I have talked about cross-examination as one method, but not necessarily the primary or only method of testing evidence.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

If the property of those parties is likely to be subject to compulsory acquisition and they are to have the right to an oral hearing, what mechanism will there be to guarantee them not only the ability to put their point of view, but to challenge the basis of the assertion on which compulsory acquisition is sought? It is terribly important for whatever form we have that someone who may be going lose their land, perhaps for the greater good, has the chance to challenge. That, almost invariably, involves testing and probing the evidence put.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Indeed. I think that I made it clear a moment ago that the responsibility for testing and probing will rest with and be led by the commission, but it may involve cross-examination. Clearly, any party giving evidence at an oral examination would want to try to ensure that the right questions and testing were undertaken by the commission. It can use cross-examination if it wishes. The framework that we have set out emphatically does not rule that out if it is necessary.

There are two principal reasons for which cross-examination might be necessary. The first helps to address the hon. Gentleman’s point, and the second is equally important. Cross-examination may be necessary to ensure that adequate testing and representations have been made to the commission, and an interested party potentially affected by a CPO may have views on that. However, if cross-examination is necessary to ensure the representation of interested parties, clause 85 allows that to happen and for the commission to ensure that it happens. I hope that that is a sufficient explanation.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister makes it sound reasonable, but we are concerned that things will not work out that way in practice. That is why we regard the matter as one of important principle.

It is suggested that cross-examination is somehow useful only to those with deep pockets. The reality is that the situation will probably be the reverse. The ability to cross-examine is likely to be most important to the little people, as it will probably be the only means by which they will be able to get their case across and to challenge. They will not be able to have a detailed written submission put in by an expert in the same way that the applicants and the big battalions will be able to do. Their ability to have their say and to ask questions is probably more important. So it is, in fact, a protection for the little people, rather than the well resourced.

With respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, I do not think that his first point entirely follows, because the type of applications that we are talking about are not of the class likely to be considered by a local authority planning committee. Even in the current situation, they will invariably be called in and there will be a public inquiry. Therefore, there would be a hearing of one kind or another. That is the distinction.

The hon. Gentleman’s other point about local authorities, although superficially attractive to those of us with backgrounds in local government, runs into one problem. A situation could occur perfectly easily in which the local authority broadly supports a proposed development, but it has concerns about certain details and wants to pursue a particular way of dealing with the development. It has a right to cross-examine, but members of the local community who do not share its supportive view are then placed at a disadvantage. There is almost an inequality of arms created under those circumstances between different classes of people who are interested parties at the hearing. In a sense, that disadvantages the little people as opposed to those who are well resourced. In practice, it might not have the benign effect that I am sure he intended, which is why we cannot support him.

As it is an issue of principle—I will not repeat it because we have crystallised the issue in the way that the hearing would seek to do—our view is that cross-examination can be sensibly controlled.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The hon. Gentleman is right: he has crystallised the issue. Does he not accept that he has done so by testing and probing the position and the representations that I wish to make to the Committee, rather than by cross-examination?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

If the hon. Gentleman were putting himself forward as an expert witness, I might need to cross-examine him in a different format. It is often said, rightly by those who do rather more of this work than I ever did at the Bar, that the more expert witnesses there are—there will be tonnes of experts on these type of applications—the more the skilled professional is needed to test, probe and cross-examine. It will not be the little objector who will be subjected to heavy cross-examination, but the expert witness for the applicant who will need to be pushed hardest in cross-examination. It is the little people for whom the measure is most important. Although we want to see all the controls put in place, which we have agreed can be done through a different route, we regard this is as a matter of principle and so will press the matter to a Division.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I was doing something dangerous for a man: I was attempting to multitask while the Minister spoke. I am not sure whether he addressed my point about time issues. Does he have anything further to add about the time frame involved in securing the right to an appeal? I cannot remember the clause, but it is up in the 80s. It has been grouped with this amendment because we are talking about open-floor hearings. I would welcome anything that the Minister can say on that. If he cannot respond, I shall press amendment No. 319 to a vote because it is a crucial issue. It would be a huge problem if someone missed out on that fundamental right.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

When my hon. Friend responds to that could he also come back to my point about the special position of local authorities and whether he thinks that needs to be reflected further in the Bill? They are clearly given a special position in chapter 4.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

To answer my hon. Friend’s point directly, the case is not clear for special treatment in this part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right: questions of timing appear later. They are connected principally with the application process. We are dealing with the pre-application process. I propose to deal with that point in more deal when we get to the relevant clause.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Will we be able to vote on amendment No. 319 when we reach that clause?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Yes.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 202, in clause 45, page 21, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4) The Commission shall disclose a person’s request for advice under subsection (1) and the advice given under subsection (1) to a person to the public generally.’.

The amendment returns to the first issue that we discussed about transparency and the disclosure of requests for advice. I agree with the Minister’s points about the importance of transparency and probity in such cases. It is precisely because we set such store by that that we believe it should be in the Bill, rather than having the power as set out in the clause to achieve it by creating regulations. The transparency issue might give rise to legal challenge and so would be better spelled out in the Bill.

There could be circumstances in which objectors or affected parties want to know what has taken place between the commission and applicants, particularly when they are drawing up their own cases. I accept that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will apply, but sometimes it takes a long time to get information under that process. I am also concerned that sometimes applicants might seek to pressure the commission into not disclosing all of the discussions, sometimes under the guise of commercial confidentiality. The amendment would strengthen the Government’s desired position of ensuring that there is the maximum possible openness about pre-application discussions.

Again, this is a Caesar’s wife point. Because of the important principle that is involved, we think that it would be better for this power to be in the Bill, rather than it being left to regulations. I am interested in how the Minister thinks we can guarantee the preservation of these people’s rights so that they can have access to material discussions between the applicant and the commission—particularly if it is the commission and not a separate body that is giving the advice—so that they can use it in drawing up their own cases.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

In many ways, I think that we had this discussion in the debate on amendment No. 232. I dealt with the same points that the hon. Gentleman made then, and he was good enough to nod and accept them and did not press that amendment to a vote. I would like to invoke a refer-back provision rather than take up the Committee’s time in discussing this amendment. I hope that he will take the same view with this amendment as he did with amendment No. 232.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

If the Minister is reassuring me that the consultation on the regulations will take the same form as he has already indicated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 46

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in clause 46, page 21, line 41, at end insert—

‘(2A) The applicant shall pay the recipient’s reasonable costs of complying with the notice.’.

The amendment deals with a fairly simple point. We do not have a problem with the basic concept of a notice being served in the way proposed in the clause, because it is appropriate to obtain such information. However, the applicants will often be large organisations that are very well resourced, and they may well be serving notice to very small organisations or individuals. In fairness, it is not unreasonable for the recipient of the notice to claim back reasonable costs from the applicant in such circumstances. We are rightly trying to front-load much more of the work into the process for the reasons that we have discussed, but it is a question of equality and fairness.

The provision has the potential to be onerous for a private occupier or small farmer whose land is affected, if they have to comply fully with a notice, particularly if there are complications over ownership. In financial terms, there will be no skin off the nose of the applicant for a project of that magnitude when set against the overall scheme of things, but the amendment would do something to redress the balance in favour of the little people. In particular, it would add to the sense of fairness that I am sure the Minister wants to achieve in the commission’s working. I hope that it would not do any damage to the scheme of the Bill.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Perhaps it will help to put the hon. Gentleman’s concerns in perspective if I explain to the Committee the type of information that will be obtained. The only type of information that may be obtained using that power is a person’s name and address. In those circumstances, I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the costs of compliance are likely to be negligible. It would not be reasonable for the commission to authorise the serving of a notice in circumstances where the applicant could readily obtain the information by other means, such as a Land Registry search. In those circumstances, it would not be reasonable to get them to do so, so I am not sure whether the amendment, which I suspect is a probing amendment, serves a particularly useful purpose.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Minister assure me that no subsequent regulations will extend the scope of that power beyond searching for the name and address? If he can assure me on that, I will have probed as much as I need and will probably not need to press the matter further.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

The only type of information that that power can be used for is a person’s name and address. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 175, in clause 46, page 22, line 17, leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘56’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 263, in clause 46, page 22, line 17, leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘28’.

No. 176, in clause 47, page 23, line 27, leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘56’.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I return to my recurring theme of time scales, which we will probably revisit when we debate subsequent clauses. I am concerned about the imposition of fines. Where there is the potential for a fine to be imposed, we need to look at the length of time proposed. As the Bill is drafted, the time scale is 14 days, but someone could easily miss out if they are on holiday for 14 days. If that were a problem, it would be fair enough if they got a stern letter on their return and had to forward the information, but we are talking about a level 5 fine.

First, for those of us who are uninitiated in the ways of the courts, perhaps the Minister will confirm what a level 5 fine is. Secondly, does he feel it appropriate to fine someone just because they happen to have been away on holiday when the letter landed on their doorstep? I think that 14 days is far too short a period, so our amendments suggest the somewhat more generous period of 56 days. The Minister might feel that that is too long, but perhaps we can reach an accommodation, if he is prepared to examine the matter and return to it at a future stage. That would be welcome, because two weeks is a very short period of time, particularly if people are at risk of incurring a fine.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. We have also tabled an amendment, No. 263, on the subject, with the only difference being the amount of time allowed.

Perhaps more than most people, I ought to know what a level 5 fine is, but I must confess that it escapes me for the moment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me, but I could not tell him, so I did not charge him anything—I am sure that the Minister has the information to hand. My recollection is that a level 5 fine is at the top end of the scale. I agree that that could be thought to be onerous, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has set out. If there is scope for accommodation, I commend our figure of 28 days, which is a middle point in the spectrum that is achievable as a businesslike proposition for the Minister.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

First, a level 5 fine is a maximum of £5,000. Secondly, I do not think it unreasonable to have a minimum time scale in the Bill, and we judge 14 days to be a good minimum. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has bid for a fourfold increase in that amount, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has bid to double it, but neither of them made a strong case why the minimum time scale should be increased.

The purpose of clause 46 is to allow the commission the power to authorise a promoter or applicant to serve such a notice on the occupier of the land. Anyone who receives rent for it, manages it, is a mortgagee or has an interest in the land is required to provide the names and addresses of people with an interest. That is the purpose, which is quite narrowly drawn, and not a cause, as far as I can see, for the level of concern expressed by Liberal Democrat and Tory Members.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I do not disagree with the basic principle, which is perfectly fair, but can the Minister make a strong case why 14 days is the magic figure, as opposed to 28 days or 56 days? Is there any particular evidence or any consistency with other practice that spells out 14 days?

John Healey rose—

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

How about 42 days?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I hear 42 days from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon.

The time scale is a minimum, and the commission can specify a longer time period, if it judges it to be right in the circumstances. Clause 46 relates to the notice period that must be given before a right of entry can be exercised—no more, no less. If hon. Members have a stronger case to put, then I will, of course, listen, but as things stand, for the power that the clause bestows, I do not hear the strength of argument from them that would persuade me that 14 days is not an appropriate minimum. If the hon. Gentleman wants to press his amendment to a vote, I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I did not expect the Minister to be generous on some of the amendments, but he is being particularly stingy on that one.

If we are talking about 14 days, someone might not receive notification for all sorts of reasons—they could have gone on holiday or into hospital, and we have heard about busy times of the year and so on. We can say that 14 days is the minimum and that the maximum fine is £5,000, but, if we think that either end is extreme, we should change the Bill. We have to acknowledge that that minimum time period and the maximum fine may be imposed. We are not necessarily talking about companies or local authorities; we could be talking about private individuals. The time scale and fine are tough things to impose on someone in connection with an application.

We have been having an auction on the number of days, and I am open to suggestions on a more reasonable minimum. However, we need to take seriously the possibility that someone could have a £5,000 fine slapped on them for simply being unable to respond, for whatever reason, within 14 days, which would be overly onerous. A lengthier period would not delay an application hugely, and I cannot see a huge argument against it. I shall withdraw my amendment, but the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may wish to intervene to say that he wants to push for a vote on his amendment.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I cannot oblige the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps we will return to the matter. Does he agree that it is uncharacteristically rigid of the Minister not to give way on this and that it would be onerous to catch an ordinary family holiday that falls foul of the provision? A 28-day period would be more reasonable.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on me at my request. Far be it from me to suggest that rigidity has entered the Minister’s demeanour, as he has spent some time at the Treasury. I hope that he will consider the issue and whether a fine should be imposed on someone for being unavailable for 14 days. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 47

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 47, page 23, line 11, at end insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1) shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 47, in clause 179, page 101, line 1, after ‘section’, insert ‘47(1),’.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The amendment would insert a subsection to which we have referred before. Introducing the measure by statutory instrument would allow time for reflection. We are still not convinced that it is wise to embark upon this course, when we are yet to see the working out of the 2005 rules. Because we have misgivings, and because there is still a lot of uncertainty, we want to allow more time for reflection. The House should have the opportunity to vote before it introduces a procedure that potentially has significant ramifications for the rights of individuals.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Quite simply, if the hon. Gentleman wants to see how the 2005 rules work out before putting this part of the Bill into effect, we will have to wait for a number of years. It may not be just the end of this year, but the end of next year before we see the first of the applications under the new rules. If he wants to see the rules work out, we will have to wait a lot longer. Despite his velvet presentation, the amendment would drive a coach and horses through this part of the Bill.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We need to consider not only the way in which things work in practice, but the need for sensitivity, which the Government should recognise. The right of entry into someone’s home, for example, is a significant interference with their legal rights, such as their rights under the European convention on human rights. The Government are anxious to comply with that convention, which should not be ignored, save on the most compelling grounds. That is why a provision that allows an intrusion into someone’s private property, albeit for justifiable purposes, should not be brought into force without the House being able to vote on it. If it became apparent that there would be a delay in seeing how the 2005 rules work out, we need not wait for that. It is that interference—perhaps I should have stressed that more in my earlier argument—with the rights of the individual that concerns me, but I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 48

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 177, in clause 48, page 24, line 16, leave out from ‘land’ to end of line 17.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 178, in clause 48, page 24, line 21, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I shall be brief, because we have already discussed the difference between Crown land and other land. When I was tabling the amendments, I considered the point that more protection is afforded to Crown land than to the land of private individuals. Therefore, I do not wish to move the amendment officially.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

The amendment has not been moved formally.

Clause 49

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 203, in clause 49, page 25, line 8, leave out ‘from a local-authority consultee’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

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’.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

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.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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.

Clause 50

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 179, in clause 50, page 25, line 42, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘56’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Yes.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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.

Clause 53

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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.

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.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

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.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

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.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

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.

Clause 59

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I beg to move amendment No. 370, in clause 59, page 30, line 36, after ‘until’ insert ‘— (a)’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 371 to 377.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

May I own up to the Committee, Mr. Illsley? We have spotted a loophole. We did not spot it earlier, but we have spotted it now, and the amendments are designed to close it. I hope that if I briefly explain to Members what the loophole is, they will agree that the amendments are appropriate. It involves a curious situation that could arise. Clauses 59 and 73 could allow an ex-commissioner to opt to prolong their term of office until the end of a particular examination, regardless of whether or not they had been removed from that examination by the chair—in other words, even though they were no longer conducting or involved in the examination. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman want me to give way?

Mr. Curry indicated dissent.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

If an ex-commissioner opted to prolong their term of office after they had already been removed from the panel, they would be treated as a commissioner, paid a salary and any other benefits, but would not do any work for it. We are anxious that such a situation should not arise, but it could at the moment.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I shall not detain the Committee for long. I am grateful that the Government have spotted that loophole. I wish that they would pick up on a few of the loopholes that we have spotted, but never mind. We are happy to accept the amendments.

Clause 62

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 282, in clause 62, page 31, line 27, leave out ‘or’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 283, in clause 62, page 31, line 28, at end insert ‘or

(c) a Commissioner who is conversant in the Welsh language.’.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

This is a relatively minor point, but it could be significant to some people who are concerned with individual applications. There is only one Committee member present who represents a Welsh constituency, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not here. [Interruption.] There are two members—I apologise to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West. I spotted one, but I had not looked over my right shoulder. I hope, then, that there will be even more support for the amendment than I had anticipated.

The amendment is about the Welsh language. I am a great supporter of the Cornish language, but, unfortunately, we are not quite at the stage when people will need to give evidence in the Cornish language regarding an application in Cornwall. I am grateful to the Department for Communities and Local Government for supporting the Cornish language and for giving it some funding for the first time.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I will make sure that those responsible in the Departments know about them. Would it be in order if he were to move the amendment in Cornish, Mr. Illsley?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Meur ras. I can say thank you, and that is about it.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Rwy’n barod iawn i ateb yng Nghymraeg.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Meur ras, I think.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. In English please.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Sadly, I grew up in Cornwall at a time when the language was not receiving funding and was not available in school. I am sure that the Minister is following the debate on a single written form, which will allow it to be pushed out into schools in the community a lot more. However, the amendment relates to the Welsh language, which has a significant and growing community that includes not only those who use it as a second language, but those who use it as their first language. That is the point.

There have been debates and Bills in this place and consideration in the courts about the use of the Welsh language and the ability of people to be cross-examined in Welsh and to have their case heard by a Welsh-speaking jury. Where we are discussing provisions for the Welsh Assembly to advise on the appointment of members to the commission, it would be beneficial for one of those members to have an understanding of the Welsh language. We have already heard about the many wind farm applications in north Wales, and there may be other significant projects that fall within the provisions of the Bill and that are heard by the commission. I am sure that it would benefit those people who have Welsh as their first language to be able to give evidence in Welsh. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

On a point of information, Mr. Illsley. European regulations, which are printed in all sorts of different languages, can sometimes lead to great confusion simply because one concept does not translate easily into another language. For example, the German word “Raum” is not the same as the English word “room”, and I remember that huge problems arose with the regulations concerning the slaughter of poultry on the question whether rooms had to be provided for vets or whether there simply had to be spaces. If there is a dispute between the Welsh and the English, which text will take precedence?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I feel constrained to make a contribution to this debate. Over the years, the Conservative party has shown its adherence to and support for the Welsh language. The Conservative party piloted the Welsh Language Act 1993 through Parliament, so we yield to no one in our support for the Welsh language. My concern is not that the commissioner should, so far as is possible, be able to speak Welsh; it is just a question of capacity.

We are talking about appointing commissioners who are experts in their individual fields. Wales is a small, but highly talented nation. Unfortunately, the number of fluent Welsh language speakers who are of working age is relatively small. Among their number are some distinguished hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I am concerned that it may be difficult to find a sufficient pool of, for example, Welsh-speaking nuclear engineers to form part of the panel. Welsh-speaking nuclear engineers would probably find it far more profitable to be employed as expert witnesses rather than as commissioners. Although I sympathise with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, in practice it is probably unattainable.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

This is probably an attempt by the Liberal Democrats to look positive and sympathetic about the Welsh language, which is always welcome, but it is inappropriate in these circumstances. The fact of the matter is that, because of the greater use of Welsh in a variety of circumstances, such as court and tribunal proceedings, public bodies in Wales are used to dealing with the language and ensuring that that is done appropriately. I hope that the Minister will tell us that, in accordance with the modern requirement for public bodies to have policies on how to deal with the Welsh language, the new body will always look at making it possible for people to give evidence in the language of their choice and for appropriate arrangements to be made, if a commissioner were to need that capacity.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall that the important thing is to have the right people in place with the right competencies, rather than having artificial constraints on the appointment of commissioners. The issue is more about how things have changed over the years, in part because education has developed over many years.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West has mentioned the Conservative party’s support for the Welsh Language Act 1993. The increased use of the language in areas where it was not previously available or spoken is largely due to the considerable generosity of Labour authorities, often in non-Welsh-speaking areas, in promoting the teaching of Welsh over many years.

The point is that the artificial limitation proposed for the appointment of commissioners is inappropriate. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that appropriate provision will be made for Welsh in those arrangements, as in all others.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

May I first apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate? The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made the point well that, as a public body, the new body must have a Welsh language policy. Therefore, the points that concern the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be dealt with within that body.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Clause 62 will ensure, as hon. Members have recognised, that as far as is reasonably practical, any panel that considers an application for a major project in Wales will have among its members a commissioner who has been nominated by Welsh Ministers. We have said that there will be two or three such commissioners, or a commissioner whom Welsh Ministers are content should be considered in that way.

The amendments would add a third option, so that a member of the panel would be able to speak Welsh. We all agree that it would be excellent if at least one member of a panel considering a Welsh application were able to speak Welsh and to understand anyone who wished to be heard in that language. However, it is extremely likely that one of the criteria that any Welsh Minister will want to consider when nominating a potential member of the commission will be the ability to speak Welsh. We will discuss that matter with Welsh Ministers when we come to specify in our advertisements the skills and competencies that we are looking for in potential applicants. In the spirit of devolution, I think that that is something that the Committee should leave in the hands of Welsh Ministers. Well intentioned as the amendments are, I am not sure that they would either add flexibility in appointing commissioners or, in the case of a panel or single commissioner considering an application in Wales, ensure that someone is found with the right skills for the job.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and to all hon. Members who have given me the benefit of their experience, particularly the three former Welsh Ministers who have participated in the debate. The amendment is not an attempt to make a political point for the Liberal Democrats; it is a personal point, as I am a great supporter of all the Celtic languages, and wherever I see the opportunity to try and promote them, I will. In passing, I will mention that my mother is Welsh, although she is an English speaker from the valleys. I was also at university in Aberystwyth, where I had the benefit of hearing the Welsh language in action a great deal.

I accept what the Minister is saying. We do not want to fetter too greatly the Welsh Ministers in deciding whom they would like to recommend. However, we have added to the list of qualities that the special people whom the Government will seek must have. The issue of social skills was raised earlier. When considering applications in Welsh, an important consideration could be that the candidate can understand contributions made by members of the public and objectives in both languages that are in common use in Wales. I certainly will not push the matter to a vote, but I am glad that we have had this debate and that the Minister has considered the importance of the Welsh language.

Clause 66

Clause 67

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 286, in clause 67, page 33, line 21, at end insert—

‘(3) The vote of each member of the panel in respect of each decision shall be recorded.’.

I am beginning to feel like a one-man show here. [Interruption.] I apologise; there have been some excellent responses from the Minister. The amendment relates to votes being taken within the panel when determining an application. That raises the possibility of different commissioners serving on a panel taking a different view with regard to an application that they are considering. They may have different areas of expertise and experience, and it is part of their role to use that experience to consider an application, to take into account the evidence before them and to reach a conclusion following discussion.

If it were to come to a vote, the amendment would require each vote on an application to be recorded. As commissioners may acquire a reputation in certain fields, with the implication that they hold certain opinions and views, were any trend to become obvious, it might be suggested that they were prejudging applications based on a certain point of view. To record the commissioners’ votes on each application would help transparency and make it more likely that those who are concerned about how an application has been handled would have the evidence, or contributory evidence, in order to call the judgment into question.

The amendment is simple. It would not damage the Bill or obstruct what the Government are trying to achieve in any way, but it would mean that people concerned about individual commissioners taking individual views would have the evidence in front of them. It may help the Government, because it would help to allay any fears by showing that there is no bias and that the commissioners are considering each individual application on its merits, with no trends developing at all. It could work both ways, but whichever way it works, I cannot see how it would be anything other than helpful, and I therefore hope that the Minister will consider taking it on board.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I normally find myself in agreement with my Cornish friend, and the fact that this time I am not sure that I do probably means that the Minister is about to accept the amendment. If the commission is to work, it must operate on the basis of collective responsibility, which means that the decisions must be indivisible. The trouble is that if commissioners get a reputation for voting in a particular way, like the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, the minute that they are appointed to a case, the first thing that will happen is that their past history will be wheeled out and presumptions made about how they are likely to react.

I see the obvious attractions of recording and publicising votes, but I also see the drawbacks in terms of developing collective wisdom, with individual commissioners being separated out and comments being made about the appropriateness of certain appointments to carry out certain tasks. It is a conundrum to which, happily, I am not in the position of having to provide an answer, but the Minister is, and I am interested to know what it is.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

All members of the Committee accept that, as far as possible, the commissioners sitting on a panel will operate best if they operate collectively, reflecting the equal role of the members and the skills that they bring to the table in consideration of any particular application. At the same time, there are circumstances in which commissioners will disagree, and it may be that a vote on a decision will be necessary in order to avoid a deadlock. In those circumstances, a panel would take a decision by a majority and the lead commissioner—the commissioner chairing the panel—would have a casting vote, if there were a tie.

In order to avoid confusion, significant splits and some of the drawbacks outlined by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, the Bill provides that once a decision has been taken, in the spirit of the ambition to see the panel and the commission operating collectively, all members of the panel will be bound by collective responsibility. The proposal to record and publicise votes in such circumstances would undermine that principle. I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will not press the amendment to a vote.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I understand the argument put forward by both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. However, it depends where one is coming from on this issue. If we want the commission to build up the reputation that the Minister is talking about, it might help to have a collective responsibility, which is unfashionable nowadays. My concern is that such allegations will be made anyway. If two or three members of a panel are looking at an application within a certain sector, it may well be that, because of their expertise, they find themselves on another panel considering another application of a similar type. People will start to read into that. They may say, “Mr. Smith was on the last panel and that decided that, and this one has decided that.” It might help if people can base whatever they say on evidence rather than supposition. I do not think that we can stop potential criticism of the panel. It is more likely to be unfounded or founded on supposition rather than the facts. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but there could be concerns about opacity in the decision taking of a commission or a panel.

Clause 70

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I want to return to the issue of the single commissioner and would like to vote on clause stand part.

To delete clause 70 would have a fairly drastic effect on the function of the single commissioner. As far as I can see, single commissioners should not be considering applications of national importance. Having moved away from the issue of democratic accountability, I will not go over again the arguments about whether the infrastructure planning commission is a beneficial part of the Bill, but I will say that if we are going to have such applications considered, it should be done by a group of commissioners rather than a single one.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am somewhat torn between both arguments. On balance, however, the practical potential impact of having a single commissioner who is sick or who has to pull back from presiding overrides the argument that the Minister makes for what is a relatively small application. Evidence was cited to us about the north Yorkshire grid application and substations being held up for many years for all sorts of reasons. Even a small application for a substation would be affected.

We have also been given an example about roundabouts on the A1. It may be no surprise that I, too, am familiar with those roundabouts. I can imagine that any proposal to replace them with whatever might be the right solution at those junctions would be controversial. There is an interesting debate to be had on whether such projects are of national significance and whether it is more appropriate for the IPC or the Planning Inspectorate to deal with them. If such projects are to be classified as projects of national significance, and they are controversial, then however speedy the process could be under the system that we are trying to achieve with our amendments or under the Government’s system, we need more than one commissioner on even the smallest project.

The likely consequence is that although the number of applications might stay the same, the number of applications that the commission can deal with in a year will go down. That backs up the arguments that we have long made that the number of commissioners appointed and the deadlines that are implied will clog up the system and not speed up the decision-making process. I therefore support the objection of the hon. Member for North Cornwall to the clause and will join him in voting against it.

Clause 73

Clause 79

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I beg to move amendment No. 296, in clause 79, page 37, line 21, leave out paragraph (a).

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this we may discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 378 and 379, and 382 to 384.

Amendment No. 397, in clause 96, page 44, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).

Government amendment No. 385.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am sure that the more experienced Members who are used to wading through Bills will understand the use of the word “frivolous” in this context, but I must admit that it raised some concerns with me. I would be interested to hear how the Minister defines “frivolous.” I can understand that were commissioners to receive a note saying, “Dear commissioners, you are a bunch of”—one can insert the Anglo-Saxon or Welsh word of choice—they might regard that as frivolous and seek to disregard it.

However, there may be standard letters—for example, those that are completed by several objectors. Will letters that people are handed in a town centre and asked to sign, and things of that nature, be considered frivolous? The examining authority might seek to use the word “frivolous” to disregard some objections, or it could be argued by the applicant that something should be considered frivolous.

The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the use of the word. It may be that I am unaware that it is standard practice to include it, and that there is a clear definition of it, but I would welcome hearing from the Minister what the definition is.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Following on from the hon. Gentleman’s point, in other legislation and in common law, definitions of, for example, frivolous and vexatious litigants are well enough known. Is this the same sort of context? It obviously is not entirely the same, but is the frivolous part intended to be the same, and in what context?

Will there be any scope for appeal? One is hoping that there would be, because the people who might make frivolous representations are exactly the sort of people who may end up seeking judiciary review applications and being obstructive. I hope that the Minister can give some clarification of that. I understand that that is what the Bill is trying to achieve.

I note also that in subsection (2)(b) regard is to be had to

“any guidance given by the Secretary of State, and any guidance given by the Commission, relevant to how the application is to be examined.”

Will the guidance from the Secretary of State be guidance to the commission? I assume that that is the case. Will the guidance from the commission be to itself, or will it also be to those appearing before it? Can the Minister give us any idea as to what sort of matters might appear in the guidance? Will there be consultations on the guidance? How will they be published, and what legal status will they have? What is the timetable?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

“Frivolous” refers to a representation that the person who is making it knows in advance has no merit. The amendment would make it unclear whether the IPC is required to consider frivolous representations during the examination of an application. Although we all share the aim of ensuring that IPC examinations are thorough, efficient and accurate, we should agree that frivolous representations, which may be irrelevant, pointless or patently of no merit, have no place in the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the IPC should not use that as a means of excluding people from submitting evidence that has merit. Were it to try to do so, the normal procedures of administrative law would apply to the IPC, just as they do to any other public body. Those who believe that their evidence has been unreasonably disregarded in that respect could also make use of the mechanisms for legal challenge set out in clause 104.

Government amendments Nos. 378, 379 and 383 to 385 would strengthen the thoroughness of the IPC’s examination by ensuring that parties do not try to wreck the proceedings by using vexatious representations. They are consequential amendments to clauses 92 and 96 and were tabled to ensure consistency throughout the Bill in the treatment of vexatious representations. It should not be too difficult for the IPC to identify when representations become vexatious—there will be a large quantity of repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted representations in which the intention is not so much to explain the issues as to try to do down or subdue the other parties.

Government amendment No. 382 concerns a different matter. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has pointed out, it will allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the form and manner of a relevant representation for the purposes of clause 92 to facilitate the clear and efficient communication of information and objections. The amendment would ensure that the IPC can quickly identify the key issues that underline an application in order to concentrate its examination on the most important and relevant underlying issues.

A standardised method of communicating representations could also make the examination of the main issues more effective, which is the purpose of the amendment. There will, of course, be consultation before we finalise the proposals, and although it may be possible for the IPC to specify those things through its own procedural rules and powers, it is appropriate in this case that the Secretary of State should specify them rather than the IPC. The reason is that the decision whether a representation is relevant is the gateway to a participant being included as an interested party to the examination with the rights to be heard that flow from that. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is nodding his head, and I think that he recognises the significance of the amendment.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance that the provision will not be used to discount evidence frivolously. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 409, in clause 79, page 37, line 21, at end insert ‘or’.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 410, in clause 79, page 37, line 22, leave out from ‘statement’ to end of line 23.

No. 429, in clause 85, page 40, line 8, at end insert ‘or,’.

No. 411, in clause 85, page 40, line 10, leave out from ‘person)’ to end of line 11.

No. 413, in clause 107, page 51, line 17, leave out ‘or is incidental to’.

No. 419, in clause 107, page 51, line 20, leave out subsection (3).

No. 412, in clause 109, page 51, line 32, leave out from ‘provision’ to end of line 34.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We seek clarification on clause 79, and we return to the important issue of cross-examination once again. Amendment No. 409 would insert the word “or”, which may not seem much in itself, but it deals with the compulsory purchase element of the matter, and we think that it would provide greater clarification.

Amendment No. 410, to move on slightly, would leave out from “statement”, because the current clause may be too restrictive. We do not disagree with the ability to restrict extraneous material, which has been our stance throughout. I see the hypothetical danger of somebody saying, “I want to go on to the merits of nuclear power, beyond what the national policy statement says.” Will the Minister give us an idea how the clause will work in practice, which will assist us?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. In view of the time for which the Committee is likely to sit, and to give the hon. Gentleman time to collate his thoughts, the Committee will take a 15-minute refreshment break, on the basis that we have now sat for almost two and a half hours and are likely to sit until the votes in the Chamber this afternoon. The Committee cannot sit for four hours without a break, and it would be as well to take that break now.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I realise that the Government Whip may be seeking to catch your eye, but I wonder whether it would be better to finish proceedings today at 4 o’clock, as the convention has been up to now. We could press on until that juncture, subject to what other hon. Members think.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. The Committee is suspended until quarter to four.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

May I say, Mr. Illsley, how grateful I am to you for your perspicacious decision to adjourn the Committee for a short time?

I hope that I can deal with the amendments quite briefly. It is clear to anyone that they are on compulsory purchase. Taken together, amendments Nos. 409 and 410 would reverse the exclusion from the ambit of the clause of issues relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, so that they are not disregarded by the examining authority. The subsequent amendments follow that pattern elsewhere in the Bill.

The reason for that is the importance to the individual of the compulsory acquisition of land. It seems right that an individual should be entitled to make representations to the authority examining such a proposal to protect the small person who may have real worries about it. If the Minister can reassure me that there are other mechanisms by which such problems can be satisfactorily vented, I shall be interested to hear them.

If the Government are saying that compensation is irrelevant and not to be regarded, how can that be reconciled with the provision elsewhere in the Bill that one ground for departing from a national policy statement is if the local impact would outweigh the benefit? That is a balancing act. If it is decided that that the impact of a proposal outweighs its benefit, surely the financial consideration might be significant. A man might come along and say, “This will put a firm out of business”. It is not unreasonable to seek some quantification on that. What is the rationale for the argument that compensation should be excluded? Will the exclusion be automatic, or will the examining authority have discretion, as appears to be the case? If so, how will that discretion be exercised?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Am I right in thinking that the reason for striking out compensation for compulsory acquisition of land from the ambit of the clause is so that the Lands Tribunal can continue its operation as the main avenue through which land acquisition compulsory payments are discussed if there is a default on an agreement? I am trying to assist, because I, too, am a bit bemused. I suspect that that may be the reason—so that the Lands Tribunal remains intact as a body.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his valuable and helpful point. If that is right, which it may well be, does he think that it runs contrary to the idea of having all the consents brought together?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That was one of my concerns. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, and I am glad that he has. Perhaps, in due course, the Minister could address that apparent conundrum and confirm whether it is intended that the Lands Tribunal will operate as it currently does when compulsory acquisitions of land have to be effected.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Perhaps I can come to the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in a moment. I hope that I shall be able to deal decisively with them.

It is important not to overlook amendment No. 429 or let it pass without comment. It is designed to prevent the IPC from refusing to allow representations at hearings if it considers that they relate to the merits of policy as set out in the national policy statement.

We have discussed at some length, particularly in part 2, the importance and benefit of Ministers setting out a clear policy framework in a national policy statement, which will be extensively consulted upon and subject to scrutiny in this House. There has been a general recognition that there is merit in moving away from the current situation in which applications and hearings are possible in which the questions of policy are reopened and examined during the course of the inquiry. I do not want that to be the case or risk with the IPC.

I shall turn to the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The Bill prevents individuals from making representations about the levels of compensation that they should receive for being compelled to sell individual pieces of land, or their interests in it. The amendments would alter that position. I tried to explain this when I gave evidence to the Committee. If there is a dispute about the levels of compensation for the compulsory purchase of pieces of land, it is a matter for the Lands Tribunal, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy surmised, not for the IPC. Nor is it a matter for the Secretary of State if he, and not the IPC, took the decision on a particular application.

On the other hand, amendment No. 412, relating to clause 109, touches on a different question. If individual levels of compensation rightly remain a matter for the Lands Tribunal, it is appropriate and necessary—on reflection I hope that Members will agree—that the IPC can include in an order granting the development consent a provision to ensure that the legislation relating to the assessment of compensation applies to it. It is also appropriate that compensation for land compulsorily purchased is assessed on the same basis as generally applies. That is a provision to ensure that compensation is assessed in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1973 or the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Finally, Members know that I have a lot of sympathy with the aim to create a single consent regime, with the intention that promoters can include the totality of their proposed work in a single application. In many cases, applicants will include in their application works connected to the operational effectiveness of the new facilities, such as connections to the national electricity network for a new power station. An electricity undertaker in such a situation might need to acquire land at some distance from the power station to put up pylons or as a means to gain access for overhead line maintenance. The clause simply enables such compulsory purchase provisions to be included in applications for development consent.

Finally, amendment No. 419 would remove the need for the IPC to be satisfied that there was a compelling need in the public interest for land to be compulsorily purchased. I assume that it is either a probing amendment or a drafting deficiency. Surely Members would want the IPC to have the ability to issue compulsory purchase orders only, and would not want it to do so without having to be sure that there was a case for it in the first place.

I hope that my comments have been useful and that Members do not feel the need to press their amendments.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister is quite right about amendment No. 419; an error slipped into the drafting. I heard what he said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 82

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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.

Clause 84

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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 (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I want to call a vote on amendment No. 319.

Clause 85

Clause 89

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

I beg to move amendment No. 380, in clause 89, page 41, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 381.

Government new clause 12—Timetable for decisions.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

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 (Labour, Wentworth)

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.

Clause 92

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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—

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.