Q Thank you both for your time this morning. I also wanted to ask you about the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. As you know, the objective of the Bill in this area—chapter 1 of part 1—is to provide for a more certain regime, but also to speed up the process through which applications are taken, because we have seen, as you are both aware, a deterioration in the performance of the system over recent years. We have done a huge amount of consultation on this legislation—statutory consultations, working papers, calls for evidence—but we are still very much in listening mode on whether any further changes are required. I want to get your views, picking up on the comments that you just made. In terms of the critical barriers to bringing forward major economic infrastructure, where do you think the Bill gets things right, and where does it not go far enough?
Sir John Armitt: The Bill seeks, to a large extent, to provide a regime of compensation to offset where people are going to be affected. That, in a sense, is no different from what we have seen in the housing sector in section 106, for example, for a very long time. The real challenge here is the ability of the process to actually slow things down. We know that judicial review is one of the big difficulties in this area. You could argue that the recent recommendations made for judicial review do not go that far. The only way in which it can be held back is where the court decides that the issue being raised is, perhaps not frivolous, but immaterial. But I would imagine that the nature of the legal system is such that people will find ways around that.
Judicial review constantly acts as a brake, and influences those who are developing projects to try to cross that bridge before they get there: you put in more mitigation than ideally you would wish, which raises the cost, and you potentially finish up with a more expensive project than ideally you would have had. That is the nature of people trying to second-guess what is going to be raised and how the judicial review will be handled.
I am not sure that the recommendations will go far enough to have a serious impact on that aspect, which is one of the central aspects of what has been holding up these schemes quite significantly. Each year of judicial review is likely to potentially add a year to the process, and that is why it is difficult to see that these changes will benefit the overall process by more than six to 12 months, at the end of the day. Robbie and I were talking about this before we came in; he is more of an expert in it, so I will turn to him for any other observations.
Robbie Owen: Minister, I absolutely support what is already in the Bill. I think that every provision on national infrastructure planning is appropriate, including what I hope will be added to the Bill through the amendments that you tabled yesterday, in relation to pre-application consultation and some other measures. As you say, those are all good measures that have followed extensive consultation and engagement.
There are two areas where I believe the Bill needs to go further, be bolder and be strengthened. The first relates to the further streamlining of the development consent order process. That should focus on allowing the standard process to be varied, on a case-by-case basis, where there is justification for doing so. That was trailed in your planning working paper in January; I encourage you and your officials to have another look at that, because there is a justification for giving some degree of flexibility to reflect the nature and requirements of individual projects and how the standard process might need to be adapted to them.
Secondly, we need to look again at the ability of the DCO process to be a one-stop shop for all the consents you need for construction of these big projects—that was the original intention back in 2008. All the discussions around that have yet to fully come to a conclusion. I note the review by Dan Corry, published a couple of weeks ago, but I do not think that it provides a full answer to allowing development consent orders to do more than they have been doing in practice, in terms of all these subsidiary consents, which, beyond the development consent order itself, are quite important for some of these big projects.
The other area where the Bill should and could go further relates to the whole area of judicial review. The changes that were announced in January, following the call for evidence off the back of the Banner review, are not particularly significant. They are really quite modest, and relate largely to the permission stage of judicial review. Approximately 70% of judicial review applications get permission and go forward, therefore we need to focus beyond the permission stage.
There are two other areas where the Bill could make some worthwhile changes. The first relates to the interaction between judicial review and national policy statements. As you will know, national policy statements are approved by Parliament, and the Bill contains some proposals to change that process. It has always struck me as strange that national policy statements can nevertheless still be, and are, judicially reviewed.
The final point on judicial review is that Parliament should be able, if it wishes, to use a simple one-clause Bill to confirm decisions to give development consent for projects of a critical national priority. This used to be the case: we used to have lots of provisional order confirmation Bills. I think that is a very good way for Parliament, where it wishes, to express its support for a big, critical project. That could easily be done through some amendments to the Bill.