Clause 89
Planning Bill
3:45 pm

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

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

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

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

Government new clause 12—Timetable for decisions.

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

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

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

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 (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

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

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 (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

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

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.