Clause 1
Planning Bill
10:30 am
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is right. We must decide the difference between the quasi-judicial role that all our Planning Acts have given Ministers, in terms of making the final decision, and the expectation and belief of our constituents that those decisions are taken bearing in mind not only the quasi-judicial, but the reality of the balance of the arguments on both sides and the factors that affect them so directly. That is part of the fundamental reason why we believe that the commission, if that is what we wish to call it, should be brought within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate and should then report to Ministers for their final decision.
In setting up this new body, we must also bear in mind that even if many of the more experienced members of the Planning Inspectorate move over to become commissioners or to staff the commission—quite apart from the impact that that will have on the smaller planning deals that go to them, and we can take out proposals that will no longer go to the Planning Inspectorate because of the proposals on the local member review board—there will be congestion for the smaller planning applications. That is possibly why we have heard so much evidence saying that various organisations would like to expand the definition of a national infrastructure project, because they can foresee this particular problem. I have great sympathy with them on that problem, but the proposal is that there should be a wide range of people on the commission who have experience other than in planning.
Anybody who is brought in would have to be trained in planning law. One assumes that if they have not come through the Planning Inspectorate and are not from the legal profession and in the planning Bar, they will have to be trained quite intensively in planning law. They could come from the environmental or the business sectors. Network Rail has stated that it would like a rail engineer on the commission, and the nuclear sector has said that it wants a nuclear engineer among the planning inspectors.
Many hon. Members among us have legal training and will know that the commissioners will have to be trained in not just planning law, but methods of dealing with witnesses. A problem that many of us have with the Bill is about the right to be heard, the open forums, the questioning of witnesses, and ensuring that people feel that they have the opportunity of putting their case and of challenging those who have a different view. Since the White Paper, the Government have moved from the desire for a paper-based system to open forums. We managed to get a slight concession when the Minister gave evidence last Thursday that there would be the ability to cross examine in a small number of cases—I am not quoting him precisely. The commissioners will need all those skills on top of their original skills. They will be rare birds, if we are able to find them. I have a suspicion that, with the best will in the world, any decision that they make could be challenged, sadly, on the grounds of whether they have the sufficient skills and expertise to make those decisions.
There is also the potential for conflicts of interest. In due course, we will come on to codes of conduct and all the other constraints that will potentially be put on commissioners. However, it will be very difficult to find people whose background is not challengeable on the grounds of conflicts of interest. I was peripherally involved in the debate on the single casino and within the community that took an interest in that issue, every member of the committee, bar one, was potentially open to a challenge of a conflict of interest. I suspect that it will be very similar with these commissioners.
The commissioners will be exceedingly rare birds to find. The nuclear industry has a desire for a nuclear engineer to be among them. However, the Government recently made a statement on an increase in the number of nuclear power stations and there will be a national policy statement on nuclear energy. They will be very difficult to find in the first place because any nuclear engineer who becomes a commissioner will probably be much better paid in the private sector. We will have a problem of expertise, whereas people within the Planning Inspectorate already have the skills. If there is a desire to widen the membership of the commission, the Government would be well advised to start hiring some of these experts and get them trained up through the Planning Inspectorate.
We want to bring these matters within the Planning Inspectorate because I suspect that the number of commissioners required under the Bill will not be sufficient, and we will come to that in greater detail. It would be possible for the Planning Inspectorate to adjust its business and processes to absorb the extra people who will be required to deal with the national policy statements and the infrastructure appeals. If we were to combine the potential number of infrastructure applications, the eight-month timeline and the numbers of commissioners, someone will fall down somewhere because it is difficult to see arithmetically how the number of commissioners set down in the Bill will deal with the number of applications within the timeline. Something is going to have to give somewhere, and I suspect that the Planning Inspectorate would be much better able to deal with it than any new commission.
The other area where the skills and expertise of the Planning Inspectorate are regarded so highly, but where the commissioners could run into problems, relates to the panels. Anything from one to five commissioners could make up a panel for any one application. Let us suppose that there is a big planning application for a nuclear power station and let us say that it will be in Sizewell, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has already said that he would be happy to see a third Sizewell—although this is not the right place or time to discuss whether others would.
Let us suppose that the commission decided to have a panel of five experts in Sizewell. Under the Bill’s provisions, the commissioners could be split on different aspects. For instance, if a nuclear engineer—one would assume that someone with nuclear expertise would be on that panel of five—was asked to look at the safety implications, in the legal challenge that would be raised by those against it he, and I say “he” advisedly, could be accused of having a conflict of interest for being in the pockets of the nuclear industry. I am sure that he would not be, but that would be a potential challenge. Equally, if the said gentleman was put in charge of looking at the environmental aspects of that planning application, those opposed to the plan would of course say, “He does not know anything about it.”
I still cannot get my head around how a broad cross-section of special expertise that comes together in a panel could not be challenged by those who wish to do so. The one thing that will slow down the rebuilding of our infrastructure the most is legal challenge, because we all know how long it can take to get things through the courts and the ingenuity of people when it comes to finding a way to take their case one step further.
I referred fleetingly to the right to be heard. The Planning Inspectorate currently has the skill and, indeed, power to ensure that everyone has the right to be heard. Members of the Committee will be glad to know that I am not a lawyer, as I have already talked too long. [Interruption.] A Whip would say, “Hear, hear.”
I am told that the right to be heard has been enshrined in British law—I use the term advisedly—since mediaeval times, and it is understood as the right to cross-examination. If the right to be heard is to be reduced under the Bill, there will be considerably more legal challenges, potentially both in relation to this House and under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Planning Inspectorate, however, already has the power and skills to ensure that everyone has the right to be heard. One occasionally hears the criticism that the inspectorate’s skills could perhaps be strengthened in that area, but I do not wish to comment on that. If that is one of the analyses, however, there is nothing to stop members of the Planning Inspectorate getting that further training. However, if the commission will in any way limit people’s right to be heard, the challenge will be to the courts and the process will again slow up. The Planning Inspectorate, which has the powers and the people with the necessary skills and abilities, already exists, and I cannot see why the commission needs to be set up if the Government do not contemplate ending the citizen’s right to be heard.