I am grateful to noble Lords for explaining their concerns and I hope to reassure them that there is a good reason for doing this as we have.
Amendments Nos. 98, 99, 101, 105, 109 and 112 would increase the time in which a claim for judicial review can be commenced in respect of national policy statements from six weeks to 12. Noble Lords have argued that six weeks is an unreasonably short time in which to require someone who wishes to challenge an NPS to file the appropriate claim form. I am well aware that the usual rule in judicial reviews is that claims must be filed promptly and, in any case, not later than three months after the grounds to make a claim first arose. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, suggested, we are trying to create in the Bill a process that is fast but certainly not overhasty. We need to introduce focus and discipline into the process but, essentially, this is a fair regime. It provides people with an opportunity to challenge national policy statements in the courts but it ensures also that that does not cause unnecessary delay.
It is important to remember the context in which this will work. The processes for drawing up, designating and reviewing national policy statements will be clear, open and undertaken in full public view. NPSs and amendments—unless, in the view of the Secretary of State, a proposed amendment does not materially affect the policy—will be subject to public consultation, an appraisal of sustainability and parliamentary scrutiny. So, within that, we have created a robust and transparent process. On those grounds, it is reasonable in such cases to expect that the claim forms should and could be filed within six weeks.
I also argue that this is not an entirely new provision. A six-week period for commencing proceedings applies at present in the case of statutory challenges to the development plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. So there is a useful precedent. Clause 13 strikes the right balance between the national interest and the interest of individuals who might want to challenge an NPS.
All the other amendments in the group would ensure that the time limit for bringing a legal challenge runs from the date of publication of the Secretary of State’s decision, which marks the end of the relevant administrative process. They argue that there should be greater clarity as to when the Secretary of State has made a decision in respect of these actions and that that point should be the publication of that decision. I am not sure that I agree with that in principle, but if the key concern is that there should be a clear announcement of a decision, I can give that assurance. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns that the Government should not make a decision that would affect people’s rights to bring a legal challenge but not announce it. I can certainly reassure the Committee and place it on record that, where the Secretary of State makes a decision that could give rise to legal challenge under Clause 13, this will be announced. I hope that that satisfies both noble Lords and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 14 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c682-3 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 22:57:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499746
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499746
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_499746