Planning Bill

My Lords, I, too, am puzzled by the proposal in government Amendment No. 94 and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation. The appointment is of, "““a barrister, solicitor or advocate to provide legal advice and assistance to the Examining authority””—" the commission, the panel or perhaps the single commissioner. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause states: "““The assistance that may be given by a person appointed under subsection (1) includes carrying out on behalf of the Examining authority any oral questioning of a person making representations at a hearing””." In other words, where people are concerned to make representations about an application and to challenge the statements that are being made, it will be no part of the role of the person appointed to examine the applicant, as I understand it. They may examine the witness or the, "““person making representations at a hearing””." I cannot help feeling that that arrangement will look very one-sided, but perhaps I have misunderstood what the Government are getting at. All I can say at the moment is that, having studied the new clause, I am not entirely clear how it is supposed to work. Amendment No. 95, in the names of my noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Cathcart, is also in this group. It, too, concerns a person, "““appointed to act as advocate to the examination””." Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause states: "““An advocate … may make oral and written representations to the examining authority and may ask oral questions of any person making representations at a hearing of the examination””." That seems to cover the same ground, although the amendments are far from identical. One is looking to ensure that there is an opportunity to examine the people who are making the application and to ask whether it has been properly thought through. That must be done in front of the decision-maker. I referred in our debate earlier to the conference that I addressed on Tuesday. At the conference, a highly qualified lawyer practising in the City made a skilful presentation on the main thrust of the Bill and the new planning process. I was hugely impressed. He had not caught up with all the amendments that were being made in this House, but I do not blame him for that, as that would be a difficult thing to do. However, he laid stress, as we did in Committee, on the need for a forum in which someone can ask oral questions of the applicant and perhaps his expert witnesses. That may come at an earlier stage, but the arrangement is not entirely clear to me. There was a good deal of discussion in Committee about the oral examination and I was left with the impression that part of the streamlining that the Minister and her department are trying to get will eliminate or substantially cut down the oral examination that may be allowed on an individual application. Again, I may have misunderstood what is proposed, but this group of amendments gives the Minister the opportunity to explain not only what her amendment means—as I said, it is not entirely clear to me—but how she expects the examination will be conducted and when there will be an opportunity for people who want to make representations about the application to cross-examine those who are putting it forward and their expert witnesses. I accept that it may have to be done within a tight timescale. The whole purpose of the Bill is to reach a decision much more swiftly than under the existing cumbersome system. However, it seems to me and to others that to dispense with the opportunity to put oral questions to the applicant and his witnesses is to remove a substantial part of what should be a participative process which will eventually give credibility to the ultimate decision of the IPC. It may be that I have misunderstood these things and not read them properly. However, having looked at them carefully, I am still somewhat puzzled as to how the Government envisage this process being carried on.