Planning Bill

Grouped with these amendments is the Question whether Clause 114 should stand part of the Bill, tabled in my name. I should say straightaway that I have tabled this in order to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify and explain the purpose of the new procedure for a legal challenge against a decision made by the IPC. I referred in earlier debates to the process for judicial review, which has become such a notable feature of our constitutional arrangements, in marked contradistinction to what was happening as recently as 20 years ago, and I am puzzled why this process is thought more appropriate than the customary statutory challenge made under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That has seemed to be a reasonable and effective method of challenge and I cannot believe that resorting to judicial review will necessarily expedite such actions. The clause prescribes as the deadline for bringing a judicial review a short period of only six weeks from the day on which the order or statement of reasons for making the order is published. That compares with the period of three months allowed under the statutory challenge, which of course is based on normal civil procedure rules. I suggest to the Minister that the shorter period will encourage more people than is the case at present to pursue judicial review against decisions taken by the commissioners in order to get through the gate before it closes. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister wants. This is a new area of uncertainty which has been introduced into the system and I am puzzled why the Government have done it. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the position.