Report stage, Programme motion, 3rd reading in the Commons
- Quote
- I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Time
- 14:57
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Hazel BlearsLabour- Quote
- I am very conscious of the amount of time that we have to debate the range of amendments to which you refer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to concentrate largely on the areas that Members are most exercised about. Members are concerned about three main issues: first, the principle of independent decision making, which, as they have said, goes right to the heart of the Bill; secondly, what happens at the examination stage and the public’s right to be heard, not only at that stage but under the rest of the Bill—public consultation and the right to be heard is absolutely central—and, thirdly, the impact on the local community of decisions on major national significant infrastructure projects, which is the aspect that Members have expressed most concern to me about. We should make those three areas the principal focus of our debate, and I intend to do that. The amendments fall broadly into nine blocks. If Members will bear with me, I propose to deal briefly with the Government amendments, which fall into blocks 1, 2 and 3. The issues at the heart of the Bill are dealt with in blocks 4, 5 and 6, and then we have some Opposition amendments towards the end. If I refer to minor issues, I do not mean to denigrate them, but they may not be at the centre of people’s concerns. The Government amendments deal broadly with changes to procedure relating to ministerial intervention. Contrary to some of the views that have been expressed, there is provision for ministerial intervention in certain narrowly defined circumstances, one of which relates to national security and defence. A series of Government amendments seek to prescribe a procedure where intervention takes place on the basis of national security or defence issues. They relate primarily to being able to take evidence in a particular way because it might involve sensitive matters, in order to ensure that if there are hearings in private the interests of people who might be affected are protected by special procedures. In many ways, the procedures mirror those that we have in criminal law and civil law where issues of national security are touched on and there is a need to protect the sensitivity of the information. That is the broad thrust of that group of amendments, and I hope that they are agreed to. There are provisions for the Attorney-General to appoint people to protect interests—that sort of thing—and they are in the interests of good government.
- Time
- 14:57
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- One of the causes of concern is whether the legislation was put together in a hurry, and although we welcome the points that the Secretary of State has just made, how was it possible to introduce legislation without such vital elements already in place? Why was there so little understanding, and why was the legislation not fully thought through?
- Time
- 14:57
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I refute entirely the idea that the legislation was brought forward in a hurry. We had a White Paper and a lengthy period of public consultation. We responded in great detail to that consultation, and as hon. Members would acknowledge, the Bill was significantly different from some of the proposals in the White Paper as a result of our listening and responding to people’s concerns. Equally, if we have process issues that can help to refine the procedures in the Bill, it is right to bring them forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that these are matters of process, not principle. The issues were already in the Bill; the proposals simply concern how we are going to put it into practice, so I hope that they find favour across the House. The second block of amendments also deals with process issues. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contains provisions that set out that development is deemed to have commenced if developers take certain steps. In the case of major infrastructure projects, it is more difficult to delineate the point at which we trigger the commencement of development. Therefore, we want to introduce a set of criteria that will set out what actions do not trigger the commencement of development, so we can give a bit more certainty in that area. Those issues have been raised many times by developers who are not sure when taking preparatory steps whether they are commencing their planning permission or not. That set of amendments is broadly sensible, and I hope that they are supported across the House.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Denis Murphy (Wansbeck) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that open-cast coal operators will not be allowed to circumvent the current planning system by referring new applications directly to the new planning commission, citing the national interest?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Clause 13 sets out in great detail the areas that are subject to the process of national policy statements, which involves the jurisdiction of the national planning commission, and he will find that open-cast coal mining is not one of the areas set out in the clause. Therefore, it would not fall under the jurisdiction of the Bill. I am delighted to give my hon. Friend and his colleagues that reassurance.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)Crossbench- Quote
- My right hon. Friend is well aware that between the Birkenhead and Wallasey constituencies, Peel Holdings wishes to create over time what is, in effect, a new town. Will she give me an undertaking that that terrific development, which has huge significance for Merseyside, but may not rate as a national event, will be covered by the current planning procedures and not the new ones?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I am delighted to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I have visited the area, and I have gained a little understanding of the exciting vision for the community. That project would not fall under clause 13, which deals with energy, wind, water and waste water—that sort of big infrastructure project. The sort of project he mentioned would be dealt with by the existing system, and I am delighted to give him that reassurance.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- What is the position regarding the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste? I understand that we had a paper on that matter a week or two ago, but the Government have not quite made up their mind on it.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I understand that that issue is still being considered by the special committee established to deal specifically with it. It is a matter of national importance, and getting those decisions right will be fundamental.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- Will the right hon. Lady give way?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I am anxious to get to the meat of this Bill, as I am sure lots of hon. Members are, but I will briefly give way.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Sir Paul BeresfordConservative
- Quote
- Clause 13 refers to “the construction of a pipe-line”. If the Secretary of State talked about that a tiny bit, I would be grateful. Some long and important pipelines have gone through my constituency quite easily, but a very short gas pipeline that is about to be dealt with under the procedures goes through several beautiful areas in my constituency. It is a tiny matter in many ways, but it is emotionally important. Would that matter be taken away from the local authority?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Clearly, there are issues involving the distribution network for gas and electricity. Some of the pipelines and distribution mechanisms may be small in themselves, but fundamental to a major application. Discussions are ongoing about ensuring that we get the threshold right. This Bill, this structure and this procedure deal with major national projects, but there is also the need for a single consent regime. That is a big prize of this Bill—we do not want decisions to be taken under different regimes when they comprise parts of the same project. If the hon. Gentleman wants further detail on that, I would be delighted to write to him.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Susan Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Goodness me. I shall make this the last intervention on this area.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Susan KramerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The Secretary of State is being phenomenally generous, and it is much appreciated. As the details of the Bill have emerged, a large number of my constituents have become concerned that it is not only the expansion of runways at Heathrow that will be covered by the new procedure, but changes to the pattern of operations and the ending of runway alternation. Will the right hon. Lady give us some clarification on that issue, because it is causing a great deal of disquiet?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- As I said to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the purpose of the Bill is to ensure a single consent regime for major infrastructure projects. We will come to other powers of the independent planning commission when we discuss some of the amendments. We want to ensure that in the field of aviation, for example, there is a clear exposition of national policy in the national policy statement. Individual applications will then be dealt with by the independent planning commission. Clearly, it is a matter of assessing the national need and then looking at the detail of individual applications. If the hon. Lady has concerns on a specific issue, I shall write to her with further details, and I am more than happy to do so. The second block of amendments, which I shall mention quickly, deals with where we trigger development, and ensure that the lines concerning such triggering are appropriate. Again, I hope that the amendments will have the support of the House. There is a third block of amendments dealing with cases in which different terms of consent might be granted to the original application. Members have expressed the concern that, if in the process of considering an application, some detail turns out to be slightly different from what was originally intended, there should be a notification procedure to ensure that people are aware of it. That is entirely proper because the whole point of the process is that there is a dialogue. There should be interaction, and the ability to dig into issues to get the right result. It is absolutely appropriate that people should be notified, and, again, I hope that the amendments find favour. Hopefully, those non-controversial amendments will lead us to discussions on amendments that will not find universal consensus. Further amendments have been submitted by various Opposition Members. There are amendments on whether the independent planning commission should take into account specific issues when making its decisions. There are a series of such amendments, including amendments Nos. 69, 71, 292 and 328. They would ensure that the IPC considered a list of criteria, including mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, limiting the negative impact of a development, widening the framework, looking at all relevant planning policy statements, the views of statutory environment agencies and material considerations. Those amendments would, in many ways, replicate the current considerations of the current town and country planning system, when the purpose of the Bill is to set up a new system of examining major national infrastructure projects. We are not seeking to replicate the existing system. This is a bold attempt to get a planning system that is fit for the 21st century, which can deal with major applications. I say to those who tabled that block of amendments that the framework in which the infrastructure planning commission operates should be set at the national policy statement stage. That is fundamental. To add consideration after consideration—a list of criteria—would constrain the IPC. The framework in which it operates should properly be the subject of a national policy statement. I do not dismiss the amendments, but they are unnecessary. Some amendments would make specific bodies, such as the Environment Agency, statutory consultees. The Bill provides for a range of bodies to be statutory consultees—I have no doubt that the Environment Agency will be one, but it is invidious to try to highlight only one body through an amendment. I do not believe that that would help the formulation of the proposed legislation. I am not being rude to those who tabled the amendments—I understand the point that they are trying to pursue—but I hope that I can reassure them that those planning policy considerations will be at the heart of the IPC’s framework. The next block of amendments in the group almost proposes the necessity for a third party when consultation takes place about various proposals. It includes new clause 7 and amendments Nos. 55, 317 to 322, 326 and 65. They try to provide for mediation of and comment on consultation by a third party to assess whether it has been adequate. Again, I am worried about the proposals because the point of the consultation is that the people engaged in the debate should be responsible for it. For example, the Bill provides for a new right for people to be consulted before a proposal is made. The promoter of the proposal is responsible for ensuring that that consultation is carried out. The local authority has to determine whether it was effective, but to insert provision for a third party to mediate would get us to the point at which local people felt that they had not had a proper say because their views were being translated at second or possibly third hand. I am therefore not attracted to the amendments and ask hon. Members not to support them. They are impractical, unnecessary and inappropriate. I am more amenable to the proposal for carrying out a diligent inquiry to assess who might be in a position to claim compensation. I am slightly more attracted to that proposal because it is important for promoters to know the range of people who might find themselves in that position. It would give promoters more certainty. I do not want to place an unreasonable burden on promoters, but I am attracted to ascertaining whether we can find a reasonable formulation of the responsibility so that there is more certainty about those who might be affected.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Sir Paul BeresfordConservative
- Quote
- The Secretary of State is kind to give way again. Let us go back half a step. As I understand it, the promoters consult before they submit their planning application. Who reports to the quango on the consultation—the promoter?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Yes. The promoter would have a responsibility, but as the hon. Gentleman will realise as I deal with the heart of the Bill and the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), the role of local authorities will be significantly greater in ensuring that the IPC is fully apprised of local people’s views and the impact on the community. That is why I feel that my hon. Friend’s proposal is constructive and worth while.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- I want to get the matter completely clear, because it will astound several of my constituents. Will BAA undertake the consultation on the development of a third runway at Heathrow and report truthfully and honestly to the IPC? Will the Secretary of State confirm that?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend knows that the promoter will be responsible for undertaking the consultation. That is a new opportunity for the public to be involved, which I hope that he acknowledges. That consultation will also be subject to guidance, which the Department can issue to ensure that it is conducted properly, thoroughly and rigorously and gets to the heart of the issues. Obviously, it will be subject to the IPC being satisfied, and there is also the local authority procedure. That is a pretty comprehensive belt-and-braces approach to ensuring that people have a proper say.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- John McDonnellLabour
- Quote
- Will my right hon. Friend just answer the specific question? Will BAA undertake the initial consultation on the third runway at Heathrow?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Yes, if it is the promoter of the scheme. Promoters have that responsibility. When I deal with the other issues and the points at which the public can be heard, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Bill provides much greater public consultation and involvement than the existing system.
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- May I ask hon. Members to wait a moment, because I want to deal with one more technical matter, after which we can get into public involvement and responsibility?
- Time
- 15:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- Since the Bill’s entire philosophy is based on speeding up the planning process, will the Secretary of State jog my memory on this point? In the case of building a third runway, how long does she envisage will elapse between the promoter moving to consultation and the decision to build the additional runway?
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Under current legislation, we have the precedent of the previous inquiry, which took approximately seven years to resolve. I hope that, under our new regime, the time would be much shorter, all the issues would be considered rigorously and effectively and there would be more public involvement. Those aims do not contradict one another. I do not accept that we cannot have both a quicker, more efficient system and more effective public involvement. That is what I aim to achieve, and I will deal in detail with that point shortly.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Susan KramerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- rose—
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I want to press on. When I come to the heart of the matter, I am sure that the hon. Lady will have every opportunity to make her points. I am not inclined to accept the amendments that would insert a third party into the consultation because I do not believe that it is right. However, I said that I would further consider whether there was a reasonable way in which to place a duty on promoters to implement a due diligence requirement. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has tabled new clause 39, which would retain a statutory offence against nuisance if an application goes through. I understand that that already applies for railway premises and rail network organisations. The new clause is fairly technical but nevertheless extremely useful. I read it earlier today and I believe that replicating the defence of statutory authority against nuisance claims would be useful, as the current procedures work well. Again, my hon. Friend has been constructive and practical. When I saw the title of the new clause, which deals with statutory nuisance, he did not come to mind, because he has been anything but a nuisance during the process. I am delighted to be able to support new clause 39, which helps to retain the defence against statutory nuisance in our system. Let me turn to the large number of amendments that broadly seek to make the independent planning commission a recommending body, with decisions taken by the Secretary of State rather than an independent decision-making body, and to the other set of amendments, which would require that the Secretary of State confirm the decisions of the IPC. In many ways, those are two different formulations of the same thing. Indeed, I have been struggling to think how those two propositions are markedly different. Amendment No. 5 would amend clause 1 to make the purpose of the independent planning commission advisory only. Amendments Nos. 6 to 51 and 60 to 64 go right the way through the Bill, either amending the relevant clauses so that the role of the IPC is to advise the Secretary of State in determining applications or replacing the IPC with the Secretary of State in those clauses that confer or refer to decision-making powers. The purpose of those amendments is to change the fundamental principle throughout the Bill that the IPC is the independent decision-making body. The second set of amendments, which are amendments Nos. 68 and 339, seeks to ensure that the decisions of the IPC are subject to confirmation and provides a period of up to six months in which the Secretary of State has the right to make that decision. Let me deal with those two blocks of amendments before turning to the third block, which is slightly different and provides that if the panel or the council proposes to make an order that would modify or exclude legislation, which is an important issue, that order would be subject to special parliamentary procedures. In effect, those procedures would mean that the decision would return to the Secretary of State, subject to approval by Parliament, rather than being taken by the IPC. All those areas are interrelated and interconnected, and I propose to deal with them in that way. Let me start with the amendments that seek to turn the IPC into a recommending body. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government explained when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee—it seems a long time ago now—we see three main benefits to setting up an independent body to consider nationally significant infrastructure projects and giving it the power to make the decisions. The first of those benefits is speed and efficiency, to which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has referred. We think that our proposal will mean that decisions are made more quickly. Currently, decisions are made and examined by the Planning Inspectorate, and are often subject to inquiry and then decided on by Ministers. [Interruption.] Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am talking rather too quickly and rather too loud, so I will just take a breath. The current position means that, sequentially, there are basically two processes, with two separate bodies going over the same ground. With some decisions, the proposals can involve more than one Minister, from more than one Department. That adds complexity and potential delay. Every hon. Member who has spoken, including Opposition Members, has acknowledged that our current system takes too long, is immensely costly and is in many cases almost impenetrable to members of the public. There is a lack of transparency and clarity, and there is a recognition throughout the House that things have to change. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said earlier, the system is not working, and therefore needs to be brought up to date and made fit for the modern world in which we live. The proposals that we have made will help us to do just that. We can improve speed and efficiency without sacrificing democracy and local involvement, and I am sure that this debate will explore those issues. However, it is unacceptable that, for example, the upgrade to the North Yorkshire power grid took just over six years and that, on average, wind farm applications take more than two years. In fact, wind farm applications totalling more than 1,400 MW are stuck in the system. Some 500 MW of that capacity would fall to the independent planning commission and would, I understand, be enough to power 1 million homes. All those applications are clogged up and snarled up in a fairly antiquated system that cannot process them. I am genuinely concerned that the decisions that need to be taken in the long-term interests not just of the economy but of the environment will continually be frustrated unless we make some fairly bold and radical changes to our existing planning system.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- I am interested in the Secretary of State’s terminology in respect of processing applications. I am concerned that it tends to imply that we want things decided without communities having the chance to oppose them effectively, that the Government see such projects as things that must happen and that the IPC will therefore be given a fairly firm steer that it needs to get through them quickly. I am talking not so much about what she said about a deliberative process; rather, the important thing is not just that decisions are taken quickly and that the process is effective, which I accept, but that they are right.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and I agree about that. Speed and efficiency are important, but they are not the only considerations. Decisions must be properly explored; they need to be effective and to command support because they have been subjected to testing and a proper rigorous examination. I entirely agree, but there is no getting away from the fact that over the next 10 or 20 years, we are going to have to renew a third of our energy-generating capacity in this country and we will need a diverse energy policy that seeks to get the benefits from more than just gas, where we are now becoming a net importer rather than exporter. The people of this country do not want to have to rely simply on importing gas from a range of other countries, which would then be in a very powerful position over us. That is why they want a diverse energy policy. The people of this country also recognise that in terms of aviation, any decisions are controversial, but they also recognise that we need aviation and that we need the employment that goes with the development of our airport capacity. These are big and difficult decisions, but there is no shying away from them. I have to say that what sometimes worries me is that people are prepared to will the ends—we all say we want better decisions, more flexibility, speed and efficiency—but they are not prepared to will the means to get there. That requires being prepared to take some tough decisions in the interests of our country’s long-term prosperity. That is the real political test for the Opposition parties, and at the moment, they are in danger of failing it.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC)Plaid Cymru- Quote
- I understand the logic of the Secretary of State’s remarks about the national picture, but does she not share my concern and that of many people out there about clause 13? It deals with 15 potential large-scale developments, all of which are, under the old terminology, “bad neighbour applications” that would necessarily attract the most adverse criticism from and cause the most worry to the public?
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- That is absolutely why we should have a national debate on what the country needs, which will take place around the national policy statement. It is why the public and Parliament should be involved and why Select Committees now have wide-ranging scrutiny powers over the national policy statement. It is why we have a debate in this House and in the other place and why a Minister has to have regard to all of that consultation and discussion before coming back with a designated national policy statement. That is a key crunch point for the Bill. I absolutely believe that politicians need to be able to argue their case to say what they think is in the best long-term interests of this country and to have that subjected to scrutiny and challenge in a democratic system. I fundamentally believe that identifying those interests up front in the national policy statement, set against the framework of the independent commission, provides a far more transparent degree of accountability than leaving Ministers to wait until the very end of the process, when they then have to seek to intervene. That is far less effective and less transparent than what is proposed.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. CurryConservative
- Quote
- The right hon. Lady accepts the inconvenience of living in a democracy. However much people might subscribe to the need to do something in the national interest, the fact remains that in moving from the principle to the specifics, they might well decide that they do not want something on the basis of their own interest—and they are entirely right to do so. If the national interest is to be overriding, what is the purpose of the consultation? However well handled, transparent and honest the consultation by an undertaker, in how many circumstances does the Secretary of State think it will be overturned in practice because the locals do not like something, even though the national interest determines that they should be for it?
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I think the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that I have never regarded democracy as an inconvenience. I regard it as an absolutely vital and fundamental building block of our society. That is why I have stood for office both locally and nationally. I think it is incumbent on politicians to be prepared to make the argument. Sometimes it is not popular, but sometimes we have to do things that cause a great deal of distress and concern to people, because we also must think about balancing the interests of the locality with the national interest. In many ways, that is the job that we are all sent here to do. That is why I absolutely believe that the national policy statement stage, which will be open and transparent for the first time, will provide people with the opportunity to have a say about the country’s needs for aviation, nuclear power and other controversial issues. I am conscious of the need to balance the different interests, but also of the need to take a decision, so I should like to highlight those areas where I hope to provide further safeguards in the system. That said, we can balance the interests and sit on the fence for ever, but at the end of the day, decisions need to be made.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- In replying to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), my right hon. Friend rightly identified the importance of a democratic response. Will she also recognise that there can be tension between a nationally expressed democratic view and a local democratic view? Renewable energy and the promotion of wind farms provide a perfect example. There is overwhelming national support for more effort to extend renewables, but we have found through hard experience that it is extremely difficult to obtain local consent for the installation of wind farms in many parts of the country. It is precisely because of the need for the wider national view to be taken into account, and not always to be subordinate to interests that can often be hostile for local and parochial reasons, that the framework in the Bill is so necessary.
- Time
- 15:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I am delighted to endorse that contribution from my right hon. Friend, who, as a former Minister in this field, has had to make some pretty difficult decisions on occasion. The areas—and there are a couple of them—where wind farms have proved popular have been areas where local people have recognised that they can reduce their fuel bills dramatically.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. CurryConservative
- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I want to make a little more progress.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. CurryConservative
- Quote
- The Secretary of State promised to let me intervene again.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Did I promise? Goodness me. Well, I am not a person who would ever break a promise. I am delighted to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. CurryConservative
- Quote
- I would certainly never accuse the right hon. Lady of that. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) is right to suggest that planning is essentially about mediation, but mediation sometimes fails when differences are irreconcilable, as they might be in relation to wind farms in my constituency or, for that matter, the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency in part of the Thames area. However important are the consultation processes that help to smooth the way to the achievement of a national consensus, subjecting the national policy statements to a vote in this Chamber would give them the imprimatur of the democratic Assembly of this country. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will not happen?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I do not propose to rehearse the debate held on the first day of Report. The matter was well ventilated then, and following a vote in the House it was decided not to proceed in that way. In those terms, democracy has spoken. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that these are issues concerning policy. I believe that we are going further than any other legislation of which I am aware by enabling that policy to be subject to debate and proper scrutiny, including Select Committee scrutiny, in a way that has never been possible in the past. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a fair person, to reflect on how far we are shifting the Bill to try to strike the right balance and provide mediation in the right way in very difficult circumstances.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I will make a little more progress, if I may.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
- Quote
- It is on that point.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- It may be on that point, but I am going to make some more progress. We consider speed and efficiency to be important, but that is not our sole objective. We also think that our proposals will lead to better-quality decisions. The big, nationally significant infrastructure projects are sometimes uniquely complex, and also involve major technical questions. The Heathrow application involved seven different consent regimes and 37 different planning applications. It was incredibly technical and complex. We need to ensure that the members of the independent planning commission have enough relevant expertise and knowledge to get to grips with some of the issues, and also that they have a background in community engagement and understanding of issues that are important at local level. We do not want them simply to be technical people, removed from matters that local people consider important.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Sir Paul BeresfordConservative
- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I will, for the third time.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Sir Paul BeresfordConservative
- Quote
- The Secretary of State is very kind. I understand that the national frameworks for aviation will be site-specific. Am I right in thinking that decisions affecting people living near Heathrow, or Gatwick in my case, will be made before responsibility is transferred from here to the new quango?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my remarks. Perhaps I should press on in order to reassure him on that point. The third reason for our proposals is that there will be more clarity and transparency in regard to the different roles involved. At present Ministers could be the people who determined the policy, the promoters of a scheme and, at the end of the process, those who made the decisions. I do not think that that is a good arrangement. Having this clarity by setting the policy up front through a national policy statement and then having the IPC look at individual decisions—and then in some cases for there to be a small ministerial intervention—is a good bit of architecture in terms of achieving the checks and balances referred to. There will be a clear separation. The second set of amendments addresses where a decision might be taken by the IPC but then be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State within six months. Some people think that provides an alternative approach to the IPC simply being a recommending body. I do not think that that is so, because requiring the Secretary of State to confirm IPC decisions means in effect that Ministers are taking the decisions themselves. In order to get to the point of being able to decide whether to confirm a decision, it is necessary to review everything that has gone on, so there is still the position—[Interruption.] Well, I am glad we have consensus on that. I do not need to go into the terminology and tautology of those amendments. They would add to uncertainty, and they might be even worse than the original set of amendments, which would have turned the IPC into a recommending body. That would undermine transparency as well. We will, therefore, oppose those amendments. On improving accountability, there will be clear policy statements and a power of intervention. That is already in the Bill. My discussions with Members have led me to believe that many people have not understood that the Bill as currently drafted includes the power for Ministers to intervene in certain circumstances, not only on national security and defence, but, for example, where the national policy statement does not cover a specific issue. The Minister can either decide to review the national policy statement or to take the decision. Again, where circumstances change or there is new evidence, the Minister can say, “The NPS doesn’t bite, and therefore I intend to make the decision.” That is important, because the terms on which our debate has been conducted have almost been that there is absolutely no point at which Ministers can intervene at all, and I want to make it clear that that is not the case. The Bill also includes provisions that make the IPC accountable, and that make it give reasons for its decisions and ensure that they are clear. I know, however, that people still have concerns; there has been vigorous debate in Committee. I therefore propose some changes to address those concerns, which I want to put on the record. I have had extensive discussions with Members—certainly from the Labour Benches—and they have expressed their views constructively, and determinedly, because they feel that these issues are important to themselves and their constituents. First, I make a commitment that the national policy statements that cover nuclear power stations and airport development—the two most contentious forms of development covered by the Bill—will be location-specific. The national policy statements will not only cover the national need but will also say that development is likely to take place in certain areas, and it is unlikely to take place in other areas where, simply, it would not be suitable. As far as we can, we will make those location-specific. That is important, as it further constrains the ability of the IPC to take these decisions without reference to a politically determined framework that has been the subject of debate and scrutiny by the Select Committee and of public involvement.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- As national policy statements may well turn out to be very prescriptive, by the time individual inquiries start at local level, local people might find that the die is already cast on many of the issues covered by them. Will my right hon. Friend therefore spell out in greater detail the extent of public consultation on national policy statements—the length of time and the process that will be followed?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend will know that the phrase in the Bill is quite open regarding the consultation that should take place. I am happy to confirm that it will include consultation with the public. That will vary with each NPS, as some will be on big issues that are locationally specific, so different people are likely to be interested, while others will be more general and will not raise people’s concerns. The question is whether the consultation is appropriate and proportionate, and gives people who are concerned the right to have a say. There is the absolute intention on the Government’s part to ensure that the country has a debate about these big national issues. Whether Opposition parties like it or not, they have to be faced. If this country is to have an energy supply, the right transport network and aviation, those issues need to be pursued. We cannot put our heads in the sand: we must have that debate with the people.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I shall press on, because otherwise hon. Members will not get a chance to debate the issues. I shall go through the changes that I intend to make. The NPSs on aviation and nuclear power will be locationally specific. Secondly—
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
- Quote
- The Secretary of State said something really important: will she give way?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I said “secondly”, and I am going to get through my list, which is also important. Secondly, the Government have already proposed that the chair of the IPC should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a Select Committee. The Government have now agreed to extend that pre-appointment scrutiny to the deputy chairs of the IPC. I know that that was a concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who is at this moment chairing her Select Committee, and I am delighted to be able to address it. Thirdly, there will be a requirement for the IPC to provide the Select Committee with reports on particular subjects that concern the Committee. Fourthly, the Government have agreed that the relevant Select Committees should be able to call the chair of the IPC before them to explain not just the overall performance of the organisation but particular aspects of decisions. I hope that it will be acknowledged that that is a significant shift in terms of accountability. Finally, and most importantly, I can give a commitment that the Government will carry out a review of how the IPC is working two years after its establishment. The Government have also agreed to table amendments in the other place so that if that review reveals problems, they can in future extend the grounds on which Ministers can intervene to remove decisions from the IPC and take the decisions themselves. This new amendment will ensure that if this system is not working, Ministers have a safety valve to widen the basis on which they can take decisions in future. That is a significant addition to the Bill and this is a very strong package of measures that, taken together, will strengthen democratic accountability. Labour Members have pressed hard for better democratic accountability in the new system and I am grateful for their constructive engagement.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way now?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Oh, I’ll give way to the hon. Gentleman.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
- Quote
- I do not know why the Secretary of State gives way in such a churlish fashion. The right hon. Lady has just made the important statement to the House that aviation and nuclear decisions will be site-specific. That effectively freezes in aspic from this moment onwards decisions on those sites until the national policy statements are made. Can she tell the House how long she expects the statements to take so that applications on aviation or nuclear sites can be considered by the IPC?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not fully aware of the provisions of the Bill. The process through which the IPC will take decisions does not come into effect until there are designated national policy statements that have to go through the process. Until that point is reached, the existing planning system will continue to operate. If he looks carefully at the Bill, he will see that there is provision for the transition process that existing statements must undergo to become designated national policy statements. I suggest that he study the Bill in a little more detail, because it sets out the position.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- John McDonnellLabour
- Quote
- Will my right hon. Friend give way?
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I have spoken for 50 minutes so far and I am conscious that hon. Members need time to debate, but I shall give way.
- Time
- 15:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- John McDonnellLabour
- Quote
- The Secretary of State has just said that she has made a significant announcement about the two-year review. May we have some clarity about how that review will be undertaken, who will undertake it, where it will report, whether it will be reported to the House, and whether any recommendations for further legislation will be voted on in the House as a result?
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend raises a range of detailed issues. My announcement today was that there will be a review that will be supported by a regulation-making power, which will mean that we do not need primary legislation if we decide at that point that we have to widen the intervention power. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the detail of that issue, but as I have said, we will bring forward those proposals’ in the other place as the Bill goes through. That is a strong package for democratic accountability.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Sir Paul BeresfordConservative
- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- No. If I agree to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is always charming and never churlish, I will get in trouble from the hon. Member for Cotswold, so I am afraid that I cannot do that at the moment. I want to deal with the public’s right to be heard, because it has been the subject of various amendments, too. I have been very disappointed by some of the campaigning outside the House, which has led the public to believe that the provisions in the Bill will somehow squeeze out the public’s right to be involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the new system, the public will have at least three opportunities to get involved. They will be able to get involved with the formulation of the national policy statement and with the issues of what the country needs and where it should be on aviation, power and all those big subjects. They will be involved when a promoter brings forward an application, which is a wholly new right that does not exist under the current system, and they will be consulted about the application before it is even considered. They will have a third right to be heard during the examination in public, and they will be able to make representations and to be represented if that is what they want.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I shall give way in a moment. I am just going through the three points. The public will be involved in the national policy statement, before the application is brought forward and at the examination in public. There will be a possible fourth area of involvement when a specific issue is considered by the independent planning commission, and there will be a right to be heard. I defy any Member of the House to say that that is not a significant package of public involvement in the British planning system.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LlwydPlaid Cymru
- Quote
- As a lawyer, the Secretary of State will realise that the best test of any evidence is cross-examination. The commission will decide whether an objector has the right to cross-examine a proposer. That will be absolutely at the discretion of the commission—and that is dubious and worrying. I ask the Government to reconsider. I see that there are four stages, but why leave the veto in?
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I do not accept that it is a veto, and neither do I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I am a lawyer, and I have seen many cases in which cross-examination has not necessarily been used simply to test evidence. In inquiries that take three, four or five years and are dominated by highly skilled but also highly paid lawyers, the cross-examination of individuals can often be intimidating and an extremely distressing experience. I have no objection to an inquisitorial system that seeks out the truth. I do not accept that in every circumstance cross-examination is the best way to get to that truth. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill does not oust cross-examination. It can take place, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that cross-examination is always the best way to get to that information.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LlwydPlaid Cymru
- Quote
- There is a veto if the commission decides that cross-examination is not appropriate. In Committee, the Minister for Local Government made the point that the commission will have overall control of that inquisitorial process, as judges do nowadays. It will decide how things are managed, and it will intervene at times to prevent a long drawn-out affair and unnecessary cross-examination. I cannot understand the Government’s thinking.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- Equally, I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. It is always appropriate to set rules about how inquiries should be conducted, with guidelines as to how matters should be explored, and what the time scales should be. I do not accept that cross-examination is the holy grail when it comes to testing evidence and arriving at the truth. He will know that legal systems around the world take a different, more inquisitorial approach. The aim with planning inquiries is to balance various parties’ interests, and the commission’s ability to ask questions in an inquisitorial process may well lead to better results and information than could be achieved otherwise. The trouble with the sort of predetermined process that is the alternative is that people dance around trying to make the best argument, but do not uncover the truth and the best evidence. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against that.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- Will the Secretary of State give way?
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- I intend to finish shortly, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, as she has not intervened before. Before I do, though, I want to say that the new proposals, taken as a whole, give people the right to be heard. I am very conscious that it is often the well-organised pressure groups that can make representations to current planning inquiries. I have no problem with that, and it is right that they should be able to do so, but ordinary people and communities often find it difficult to be represented and to sustain cross-examination. For that reason, this year I have virtually doubled the amount of money going to Planning Aid, which aims to help people who do not normally have a voice. I have set out significantly increased indicative budgets for the next two years, and I want to see whether there is anything more that I can do as well. These are very important issues, about which people are genuinely concerned. I want the small voices to be heard, because very often they are squeezed out of our system. Democracy means that the less powerful people get a say, as well as the powerful organisations and groups. I give way to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone).
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynne FeatherstoneLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I thank the Secretary of State, who is being very generous. Are there any criteria or guidelines on how the new consultation rights can make a difference to a proposal? Many consultations make no difference, and I am worried that people will feel that this is just a tick-box exercise, and not something that can deliver a different outcome.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Hazel BlearsLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Bill contains provisions ensuring that the IPC must give due weight to the various representations that are made. Clearly, experience from other forms of decision making shows that phrases such as “giving due weight” or “having regard to” have specific connotations. There is quite a body of evidence on the weight that should be given to the various criteria, so we should be able to deal with the problem that she has identified. The consultation process is not new; if people want to mount a challenge because their views have not been taken into account, they will know the sort of criteria and weighting that should have been applied. As I said, we can issue guidance about the kind of consultation that ought to take place, and I do not think that the hon. Lady should be too concerned. Finally, I turn to new clause 42, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. It would require the IPC to invite affected local authorities to produce reports on the views of their residents, the impact of a proposal on a community and its interaction with the local development plan. The legal formulation says that the commission “must have regard” to the local impact report, and that is a pretty strong way of making sure that elected local authorities have a bigger say on behalf of their communities. I entirely accept that this is a question of democracy. I want to make sure that we build in as many checks and balances as possible, but at the same time ensure that decisions are made speedily and efficiently. Local authorities will also be statutory parties to the examination. The arguments about the need for a formal role for local government have been very strong indeed, and I very much welcome new clause 42, and the supporting amendments Nos. 349 and 355. I urge hon. Members to reject amendment No. 327, tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), which suggests that local authorities should be compelled to produce a report and that the IPC should pay for it. First, I am not in the business of compelling local authorities. I am trying to devolve more to them and give them more power, so I think that local authorities should do it for themselves. Also, the amendment does not make it clear to whom that report should go. The amendment on that matter tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is much to be preferred. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be disappointed with that. The final matter that I wish to deal with is whether a special parliamentary procedure should apply if the IPC wants to amend legislation. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) will know that the provisions on that matter are related to the amendment of some fairly elderly legislation that is often about railways and ports, and in many cases is more than 100 years old. Some of it is hybrid legislation, and on occasion the IPC may need to modify it as part of the single consents regime, which is a real prize that we want to get from the Bill. I want to ensure that it can do that. I do not think that we should have a special parliamentary procedure, which would be cumbersome and very difficult to administer. I suspect that beneath the relevant amendments lies the fact that the hon. Lady wants to reinstate either ministerial or parliamentary decision making instead of decision making by the IPC. The amendments are an intriguing way to seek to do that. None the less, on that basis I urge hon. Members to reject them. I want to make it clear that we shall accept new clauses 40 to 42 and amendments Nos. 340 to 355, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. I have spoken for far too long, and probably taken far too many interventions. I hope that I have helped Members to see the overall thrust of the Bill, and I genuinely think that we need to make significant progress on getting a better system to take forward our proposals. I have just had sight of a letter that National Grid has sent the Leader of the Opposition about its concerns about the Opposition’s position on the Bill. It is significant because it states: “Improving the way the UK gives planning approval for this infrastructure is now absolutely crucial to delivery of a secure, greener, energy economy for the UK. My fellow energy company Chief Executives and I therefore regard timely passage of the Planning Bill as essential.” The letter asks all parties to ensure that we can proceed, for the benefit of the environment, and states: “Without a much smoother planning process we believe many of the aspirations you set out so clear in your Blue/Green Charter will not be achieved and all of us may find the UK in an ever more vulnerable situation.” I ask hon. Members to think extremely carefully about that. As I have said, we shall support certain amendments, including amendments Nos. 340 to 355. I am grateful to hon. Members for their patience. I look forward to the debate and hope to be able to respond to any other matters that Members might raise.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- I had assumed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we would follow the order in which Members’ amendments were so charmingly read out by your predecessor in the Chair, but I rise with great interest after an hour and a minute. I shall try to be brief, because I know that many Members wish to be heard and that we are very short of time because of the programme motion. I shall address the amendments in roughly the same order as the Secretary of State and will consider the Government amendments first. She will be delighted to know that I do not have much objection to the amendments on national defence and security. I was pleased to learn that the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on the commencement of development have been taken up, and I commend the Government for listening to us on at least one matter. If my memory serves, he also brought up the issue of changes in the details of an application during the Committee stage, so we can achieve something. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on the acceptance of new clause 39, and I hope that he thinks that it is worth it in the long run. On special parliamentary procedures, the right hon. Lady is absolutely correct that we are most concerned about the lack of democracy in the infrastructure planning commission. I will speak to amendment No. 5 and various consequential amendments, which would bolster the special parliamentary procedure. I will also speak briefly to amendments Nos. 55 and 292.
- Time
- 15:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LlwydPlaid Cymru
- Quote
- A row of beans.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- “A mess of potage” is the other phrase that comes to mind. I gently point out to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe that a review of the functioning of the IPC after two years of its operations will certainly take place after the next general election. We could achieve what he stood for in Committee, because after the general election, we will review the IPC out of existence. I should also put it on record that any person who applied to be a member of the IPC would have a very short contract. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that we can achieve his purpose for him, and that it was therefore a concession that he could easily make.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady. Will she explain precisely what the policy of the Conservatives would be if they were to get into government after the next election? If they were to abolish the IPC, what would they put in its place? Would they go back to the existing system, with all its delays, which every business organisation in the country has opposed and rejected? Exactly what would they put in its place? They could not abolish it without putting something back.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman must have been the bane of the Whip’s life in Committee, because I seem to remember that he attended every single sitting. We went through this matter in great detail in Committee, but, because we have only 55 minutes left for this debate under the programme motion, I recommend that he go back and read the record of proceedings. He will then be able to see how we proposed to improve the delivery of infrastructure development; it is all set out in the record. The other thing that the hon. Gentleman has kindly achieved is the introduction of location-specific national policy statements for nuclear power stations and airports. The Secretary of State said that those were the two most controversial points, but I look forward to her introducing the national policy statement on hazardous waste very soon. However, we now have location-specific NPSs for nuclear power stations and airports, which, by definition, will effectively give outline planning permission to those developments. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we discussed that matter in detail in Committee. The problem with the Government’s proposals, and the lack of democracy involved in the proposed system, is that they lay the system open to the possibility of judicial review. Many people sincerely believe that the new system will deliver infrastructure more speedily, but I am afraid that they are likely to get an awful wake-up call. Many of the well-funded organisations who can afford to take court cases to judicial review have advised us that they will do so. So I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his achievements, and I hope that he thinks that it was all worth while. However, we will push forward with amendment No. 5. I apologise for all the consequential amendments involved. Their presence just shows that we have very diligent people working on the Bill with us. I would also point out that if the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) wishes to stick to his principles, I will have no problem with that. I could not place a cigarette paper—do we still talk about cigarette papers?—between his amendment and ours, and we would be happy to support his. We have been talking about the principles behind the IPC, and the difficulties that we foresee for it. However, we have always supported speedier infrastructure planning. We also believe wholeheartedly in the single consent regime; we just wish that it would go a bit further. We had that discussion in Committee, however, and it is not worth re-opening it here, although I am sure that the Lords will do so. I hope that the Secretary of State understands the point behind amendment No. 292. If she does not, I apologise for not making myself clear enough. The amendment seeks to remove the right of the IPC to take into consideration everything that is “relevant and interesting”. The original Town and Country Planning Act 1947 stated that “material considerations” had to be borne in mind when reaching decisions. I have been told by my legal friends that the definition of “material consideration” was not agreed until 1970, some 23 years later. Given that the term “relevant and interesting” is possibly even looser than “material consideration”, it is not difficult to envisage yet more legal cases to define “relevant and interesting”. I urge the Secretary of State to bear it in mind that if the whole issue of “material consideration” is opened up, her wish, and our wish, for a speedier system of delivering infrastructure will almost certainly be challenged in the courts for years to come. I hope that the Secretary of State will table amendments when the Bill reaches the Lords. I make that point in the best interests of planning—I hope that she does not believe that we are playing a party political role—because “relevant and interesting” may be mired in the courts for many more years than she envisages.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
- Quote
- I note that my hon. Friend has tabled a number of amendments on the role of the decision maker. The issue is whether the Secretary of State or the IPC makes the final decision. As the Secretary of State has made clear, the Bill prescribes certain circumstances in which she can take the final decision, but does my hon. Friend think that an application for judicial review will be almost inevitable every time the Secretary of State declines to take that decision, which will slow down the big infrastructure projects that we are seeking to speed up?
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- My hon. Friend makes my point for me. It is not difficult to work out that, at every stage of the process, there will be a judicial review challenge. It is a sadness for me that we in this House are working towards passing a Bill in which the flaws are apparent whenever we make a new point. I wish that Ministers would take that on board, because none of us wants big infrastructure decisions stuck in the system in the way that they have been for the past 10 years in particular. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, who dealt with this in Committee, have made a great deal of the consultation that should be undertaken by applicants for development. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe has obtained an agreement, to which I have no objection, that local authorities will oversee the consultation, but that does not go far enough. Any applicant for any development—we are discussing infrastructure in the context of this Bill—should have not only consulted but resolved as many as issues as possible before submitting the application. If the hon. Gentleman thinks back, he will realise that I made that point, which is one of the ways to speed up the system, in Committee. Many of the objections to a planning application can be resolved before they even go to inquiry. These days, the duty to consult is regarded with the deepest scepticism by the people who should participate in the consultation, largely because of the top-down planning system that the Government have imposed through housing targets. People respond to consultations in good faith, but—this is true of a planning application that I have seen in the past 10 days—the decision by the Planning Inspectorate is entirely based on the particular district council not meeting its housing targets. That decision had nothing to do with the merit of the appeal or the views of local people; it was made just because the top-down housing targets had not been met. I am sorry, but consultation is now a dirty word among people who are trying to participate in the development of their communities. We have to go further than that, and I am sorry that this draconian Government do not wish to do so.
- Time
- 16:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)Labour- Quote
- Will the hon. Lady comment on something that I have difficulty understanding? Where under the national policy statement has there been mention of something site-specific? Does she think that there will have to be a further period of consultation if and when a promoter of a particular site comes forward, or does she think that, once the NPS is in place, that will be taken to have been part of the previous consultation? Will the hon. Lady help me with that?
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- I find the hon. Gentleman’s point challenging and it is part of the difficulty of having a site-specific NPS; the Government have agreed to the site-specific NPS. I hope, however, that the communities involved in such an NPS would take part in the consultation on the details at that stage. But when it came to any application to an inquiry, I hope that they would also take part in that inquiry entirely on local planning issues. That is what we need if the planning system is to be speeded up. At present, all the planning inquiries are held up because of the long debate about the policy; that is why having a national policy statement can, by itself, take out a large chunk of time. Whoever is chairing the inquiry should ensure that it focuses entirely on local planning issues. That is how I hope it would work, but currently the Government are trying to implement it. I go no further than that.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. BettsLabour
- Quote
- Will the hon. Lady give way?
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- Of course. I keep mentioning the hon. Gentleman; it is only fair that I should give way to him.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. BettsLabour
- Quote
- I entirely agree that there should be as much consultation as possible before the application is formally lodged, because it is easiest to resolve problems at that stage. The hon. Lady must therefore surely welcome the whole of chapter 2 of the Bill; it provides a comprehensive approach to pre-application scrutiny.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman is missing the point; the Bill just talks about consultation. I may be splitting hairs and I may not understand English terribly well, but to me, consultation does not mean resolution. It means only that we have to talk, not that we have to resolve. That is the key. He may well remember the debate that we had in Committee, although I do not want to repeat it because too many other people want to speak. It was about how various planning applications have been dealt with by pre-application, and how everything had been essentially resolved before it went to the inquiry.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LlwydPlaid Cymru
- Quote
- The hon. Lady will remember the pre-legislative scrutiny stage of the Bill. We consulted many professional bodies. Did we take any of that consultation on board?
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- We took quite a bit of it on board, actually.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LlwydPlaid Cymru
- Quote
- Were there any changes to the Bill?
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- Oh well, that is different.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. LlwydPlaid Cymru
- Quote
- Ah!
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mrs. LaitConservative
- Quote
- But we certainly took it on board and based a number of our amendments precisely on the information given to us at that stage. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may remember that we picked up one or two suggestions that the Minister talked about during the pre-legislative scrutiny. Finally, I turn to the issue of the right to be heard. I am not a lawyer, but the one thing of which I am very conscious as a guardian of the liberties of the British people is the right to cross-examination. Sadly, the right to be heard is being used in the sense of people being able to speak in an open forum, not in the sense of the right to cross-examination. The right to cross-examination does not mean that everybody has to cross-examine all the time under all circumstances. However, we exist in a system of common law in which the right to cross-examination stems from mediaeval times. Even to suggest that we take that right away from the British people is to challenge one of the fundamental tenets of the British constitution. I find it breathtaking that, on issues of this importance to local communities, it should be thought that they cannot cross-examine the people who have proposals to develop in their area. I do not wish to import that into our legal system. I therefore hope that the Government will come forward with a guarantee in the Lords that those who wish to cross-examine can do so. If the hon. Member for Selby presses his amendment, I will suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we support it; otherwise, I hope to press our amendment No. 5.
- Time
- 16:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗