In the debate on an earlier group of new clauses and amendments, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the ability of his constituents to sniff out conspiracy. The Minister is trying to persuade the House that these provisions relate more to cock-up than to conspiracy. As with all legislation, we must examine how they might be interpreted not only by those who are advancing the Bill, but by those who may have the opportunity to use the provisions at a future time. I therefore share the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) about whether or not the provisions are drafted tightly enough to ensure that whatever decisions the IPC takes on development consents cannot then be rewritten quite quickly, given that that might have far-reaching consequences for those involved.
Given that I suspect that the number of applications that the IPC will have to deal with will grow beyond the annual number to which we have been told it will grow, and given that we have been discussing the increasing complexity of the things in which the IPC will have to become expert, this matter again highlights that there is a great deal of potential for all those sorts of mistakes to be made. I can see why the Government feel it necessary to introduce this provision, but it does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the whole process.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dan Rogerson
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 2 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
476 c566-7 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:50:52 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476144
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476144
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_476144