Clause 79
Planning Bill
3:15 pm
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
“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.