I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I hope that I can put on the record at least some of the points that I wish to make before the clock runs out at 2.39 pm. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and, through him, the legal fraternity for all their help in ensuring that we have tidied up some matters relating to planning.
2.30 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) raised several issues. I am mindful of the time, but I will deal with a couple of them. First, last year we reduced the six-week limit from three months. Secondly, as far as paragraph 4(7) of new schedule 3 is concerned, if an order were to be suspended pending the outcome of judicial review proceedings, developers would be free to remove the tree, which would make the whole issue academic.
Judicial review is an important subject. The package of reform to which clauses 55 to 61 relate is designed to reduce the potential for judicial review to be misused in order to hinder and delay perfectly lawful decisions, while protecting the rule of law. Mere technicalities that were highly unlikely to have made a difference to the outcome for the applicant should not be an adequate basis on which to bring a claim and halt a process. At present, as developed in case law, the courts dismiss a case on a “no difference” basis only where the end result would inevitably have been the same. That extremely high threshold allows judicial reviews to be brought on technicalities that would, in practice, have made no difference to the result or to the applicant. That is why we wish to modify the current approach.
Clause 55 requires the court to refuse permission or a remedy where the grounds for the judicial review would have been highly unlikely to have caused a substantially different outcome for the applicant. I reassure hon. Members that clause 55 will not make the exercise of that power routine. “Highly likely” will remain a high threshold, which will not be met if there is any significant
doubt that there might have been a difference for the applicant. Consequently, the clause is far from being a “get out of jail free” card for administrators that would allow them to act unlawfully.
Amendment 23 would delete the clause and maintain the current position. Taken together, amendments 24 to 28, 31 and 32 would also maintain the current position by replacing the duty on the court with a power and by replacing the “highly likely” test with one of “inevitable”. I have already set out our basis for the clause, and I trust that I have assured hon. Members of the high threshold that the clause maintains. Replacing “may” with “must” would significantly weaken the utility of the clause for dealing with minor technicalities in a proportionate manner, and it would continue the recipe for judicial reviews brought on minor technicalities to hinder progress.