Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 195, in clause 12, page 6, line 6, leave out ‘6’ and insert ‘12’.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 75, in clause 12, page 6, line 12, leave out from ‘review’ to end of line 14.

No. 196, in clause 12, page 6, line 13, leave out ‘6’ and insert ‘12’.

No. 248, in clause 12, page 6, line 14, after ‘day’, insert ‘of publication’.

No. 197, in clause 12, page 6, line 18, leave out ‘6’ and insert ‘12’.

No. 249, in clause 12, page 6, line 19, leave out ‘State complies’ and insert ‘State’s compliance’.

No. 250, in clause 12, page 6, line 20, at end insert ‘is published’.

No. 198, in clause 12, page 6, line 25, leave out ‘6’ and insert ‘12’.

No. 251, in clause 12, page 6, line 26, leave out ‘State complies’ and insert ‘State’s compliance’.

No. 252, in clause 12, page 6, line 27, at end insert ‘is published’.

No. 199, in clause 12, page 6, line 32, leave out ‘6’ and insert ‘12’.

No. 253, in clause 12, page 6, line 33, at end insert ‘or (if later) published’.

No. 200, in clause 12, page 6, line 38, leave out ‘6’ and insert ‘12’.

No. 254, in clause 12, page 6, line 39, after ‘day’, insert ‘of publication’.

Clause stand part.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

The scheme proposed is fairly straightforward. We seek to extend the time period for bringing a claim by way of judicial review from six to 12 weeks. I touched on some of the reasons involved in relation to the earlier amendments on publicity, but it is perhaps just as cogent here.

The factual and legal issues for those instigating a judicial review are likely to be complex. The scale of what is involved is likely to be substantial. In terms of fairness and a sort of equality of arms argument, a period of 12 rather than six weeks is appropriate, just and proportionate and likely to be advantageous at the end of the day in making sure that further complaint is less justifiable. We hope that the Minister will look on that with favour. A 12-week period for something as important as national policy statements on nuclear power, airports and so on does not seem at all unreasonable. It is not likely to create a significant delay in the overall scheme of things with major capital projects of that kind.

That is what that this set of amendments seeks to do. The first is amendment No. 195, but its provisions are replicated throughout the group. Amendment No. 248, which again is largely replicated elsewhere, deals with the simple point that the time for bringing a challenge should run from the date of publication of the Secretary of State’s decision rather than from the date that it is signed or takes effect. It is a simple reality that sometimes there is a delay between an Executive decision and publication. The amendment provides protection for the individual or the group, because they will not know about the decision until it is published. There have been complaints in other contexts where there is a delay in publication of a decision. I am sure that that is not what is intended here, but things sometimes go awry.

The amendments would ensure that those who have to consider whether to bring a challenge have 12 weeks from the time that they first knew about the decision.  That seems only just and there are consequential amendments on that. Amendment No. 249 makes equivalent changes so that the clause would read:

“the Secretary of State’s compliance...is published”.

Publication triggers the knowledge to enable people to consider whether they want to bring a review or not.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

I support the amendments. They are reasonable. They add to the clause as it stands. As the hon. Gentleman said, six weeks is not a great deal of time when there could be a week’s time lag between the decision and publication. When consulting planners and/or lawyers and then taking specialist counsel’s opinion, six weeks is no time at all. It is much shorter than the usual time limit on a judicial review. The hon. Gentleman put his case very strongly.

Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is not just the legal profession that could take time. He comes from a rural constituency and I can imagine that in the middle of a busy time for farmers, it would be exceedingly difficult to get an argument together in six weeks.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

With respect, with some of the farmers I know, six years would not be enough. I hope that that is not being recorded, by the way—

Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)

It is.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

Well that is the end of my seat then. It is back to legal practice now I have put my big foot in it. Do not make it worse for me, Minister.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

It is nearly 4 o’clock on a Thursday afternoon. I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In many cases farmers measure time by seasons rather than by weeks. I quite understand what he was saying.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

That probably takes the edge off what I just said. There is no need to add much more. The case has been very strongly made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It would be reasonable to extend the time, not so that people can spin matters out—part of the raison d’être of the Bill is to speed matters up, properly and reasonably—but because imposing a six-week limit would be entirely unreasonable and against the spirit of the clause.

Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I shall not press amendment No. 75 to a Division. The hon. Gentleman made a strong argument for the amendments he tabled, and I believe that they would improve the Bill.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

It is indeed the case that the usual rule in judicial reviews is that claims must be filed promptly and, in any event, not later than three months after the grounds on which they are being made first arose. However, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a six-week period for commencing proceedings applies to statutory challenges to local development plans. In many ways, the production of national policy statements is comparable to local development plans for the purposes of the provision.

The overall process of obtaining development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects can be very long. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant  Conwy rightly said that part of the rightful purpose of the Bill is to speed that process up. It is in the national interest that any legal challenges are filed promptly and without delay. The final form of a national policy statement will come after extensive public consultation and is likely to have been subject to extensive public and parliamentary scrutiny, which will help to pick up potential defects so that they may be corrected. Usually, there will be little or no need for courts to get involved at the end of the process; at least, there ought to be little or no need.

There is also no need for the Bill to set out the period in which a judicial review can be brought or to include a date by which to publish the Secretary of State’s activity in relation to that. National policy statements will be drawn up and designated through the clear and open process that we debated this morning and afternoon. Throughout, and at each stage of the process, there will be considerable reference to interested parties, so actions on behalf of or by the Secretary of State that could result in legal challenge will therefore be obvious to those interested parties at a much earlier stage, not just at the time of publication.

On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not feel it necessary to press the amendments to a Division, and that clause 12 stands part of the Bill.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I am a little disappointed by the Minister’s response. I hope that he is right about the transparency of the arrangements, but I am particularly disappointed about the time limit period, because we do not believe that the comparison with local development frameworks is valid given the size and complexities of the issues that we are dealing with. They are chalk and cheese—and the size and complexity of the issues is the difference. This is much more like those other substantial issues that are sometimes dealt with by judicial review. The idea that taking a further six weeks to consider where to build a power station, port or airport will make a significant difference to the national interest does not stack up. I am sorry that the Government are rigid on amendment No. 195, because it was designed to help rather than hinder. I shall therefore press it to a Division.