 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Planning Bill |
Planning |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 15 January 2008(Afternoon)[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]PlanningClause 1The
Infrastructure Planning
Commission
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1,
line 6, leave out ‘or any
other’.—[Mrs.
Lait.]
4
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
Amendment
No. 3, in
clause 1, page 1, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(4) This
section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may
by order made by statutory instrument
appoint.’.
Clause
stand part.
Amendment
No. 46, in clause 179, page 101, line 1, after
‘section’, insert
‘1(4),’.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I was referring to
paragraph 13 of schedule 1. Having looked during the break at the
context of that particular provision for arrangements for assistance,
it seems likely, although I await the Minister’s clarification,
that it does not relate to assistance for people seeking to make
representations. It is set in with other internal and administrative
arrangements of the commission, and I suspect that that paragraph
relates to the way in which the commission will be entitled to spend
more money and buy in outside
advice.
Mrs.
Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): Will my hon. Friend comment
on the fact that it could be buying in advice from learned friends to
teach them how to
cross-examine?
Robert
Neill:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her helpful
intervention. Underneath the joke there is a serious point. One of the
concerns that we will come to late on—I shall be careful not to
rush too far in front, Mr. Illsley—is the composition
of the commission. In the evidence-taking sessions, concern was raised
about what sort of advice will be available to the commission. The
truth is that there is a tendency, which we will come to in more depth,
to denigrate cross-examination, but it requires some skill and
expertise and it is important that there be transparency. I will be
concerned if this becomes the opportunity for a bottomless pit for
substantial sums to be expended,
and if we do not know how those will be accounted for and what
opportunity there will be for people to question
that.
Finally, there
is the interesting question of equality of arms, which is a basic legal
concept that is important in the human rights legislation. If paragraph
13 of schedule 1 gives power to the commission, which is carrying out
an inquisitorial process to arm itself with substantial outside legal
advice, but there is no provision for those seeking to challenge what
is happening or to make representations to the commission to avail
themselves of like advice, there is yet another route for legal
challenge and delay. That indicates how ill-conceived the
Government’s proposals
are.
We are firmly of
the view that the clause is ill-conceived. I hope that our amendments
clarify the matter. We do not want the clause to stand part for all the
reasons that have been rehearsed and for reasons that I have just
mentioned.
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
I admire the
gusto with which Committee members are tackling this issue, and their
difficulty in holding themselves back from diving into matters that we
will consider in detail under schedule 1. I am conscious of your
guidance to the Committee, Mr.
Illsley.
Clause 1 is
relatively limited in scope and basically says that it introduces
schedule 1, which contains all the detail that Committee members have
mentioned. I will take this discussion as fair warning and considerate
early notice of the sort of points that we will discuss later. I only
wish that some of my officials were here a little earlier to hear those
remarks. Most of them may be in their place now, which is a relief to
me if not to Opposition
Members.
We had a
broad-ranging debate this morning on the nature of the Infrastructure
Planning Commission and its principal purpose and potential
alternatives, to which I am sure we will return as we consider schedule
1 in more detail. Essentially, amendments Nos. 3 and 46, as the hon.
Member for Beckenham said, would require the Secretary of State to lay
a statutory instrument before Parliament. They would make this subject
to affirmative resolution in both Houses, and would require that before
the IPC could be set up. In addition, amendment No. 1 seeks to restrict
the functions conferred upon the IPC to those under the Bill,
preventing additional functions from being conferred under any other
Acts.
I will step
back, as the hon. Member for Beckenham attempted to do. Simply amending
the rules for other regimes, as we did a few years ago for the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, and sitting back to see how those 2005
changes might work in practice, does not measure up to the task
confronting us. That simply does not measure up to the imperative to
put provisions in place as part of trying to meet some of the big
challenges on climate change, energy, energy supply and security and
the economic future for this
country.
The reason
why I describe the situation in those terms is that we expect to have
national policy statements for key sectors, particularly the energy
field, produced and in place during 2009. We expect to have
the IPC in place and able to start considering applications in 2009. In
2009, it will be possible to anticipate the first application under the
changes introduced in 2005. In other words, to sit back and see how the
2005 changes might work in practice would be a prescription for sitting
back and doing nothing about dealing with and preparing ourselves for
some of the decisions that we need to face up to in this
country.
Mrs.
Lait:
The Minister just said that he expects the first
applications for infrastructure projects in 2009. Can he confirm when
he expects to have the first national policy statement in place? I
cannot think that a planning application can come forward until a
planning policy statement is in place—complete, finished and
agreed by the
House.
John
Healey:
I apologise to the hon. Lady if I did not say what
I meant to say. I thought I said what I meant to say, which is that
during 2009 we expect to have the first national policy statements for
certain sectors published and in place. They are likely to be in the
energy sector—[
Interruption.
] The hon. Lady
gesticulates in a rather extravagant fashion to ask me a supplementary
from a sedentary position. Whether or not those national policy
statements are through this place will depend largely on this
place—she might make the point that it will also depend on how
good the drafts are and the work done within the Departments by
Ministers and teams of officials. The production of those national
policy statements will be a significant test of Government and,
perhaps, a bigger challenge to many parts of Government than we have
faced before.
That is
our intention. We certainly want to get some of those national policy
statements in place, if we can, during 2009, at the same time as having
the IPC in place and able to take any applications that may flow from,
and be considered within, that framework. In a moment, I will come back
to the point that flows from the hon. Lady
concern.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): The Minister gave
us a list of the number of sectors that could be affected and outlined
what is a time-consuming process. The special Select
Committee—about which I have some doubts, given the pressure on
Members to serve on Select Committees as it is—will find it
difficult if it has to deal with a dozen of those planning policy
statements. Is there a hierarchy of priority in bringing them forward?
The Minister will recall that the nuclear statement last week included
the words, “We now invite the industry to bring forward planning
applications.” Is he saying, “We want power, but not
yet,” on a parallel with St. Augustine? What is the hierarchy
for bringing forward the statements? There must be one, because there
will be many applications and they will be very time consuming, so will
he give us an idea of the top three?
John
Healey:
We dealt with nuclear on last Thursday. I
explained that there were some essential building blocks for nuclear,
which meant that a national policy statement for it in 2009 was
unlikely. However, the Secretary of State said in his statement that,
for instance, we want strategic siting assessments to be completed by
2009—most likely, in the autumn. That would be an essential
building block, of which the national policy statement would form a
part.
On the
hierarchy, each Department that may have a role in producing national
policy statements—including the principal Departments of the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and the Department for
Transport—will work on policies and, where appropriate, toward
their capture as national policy statements. There is no grand
Government blueprint for statement hierarchy and pacing; it is not
entirely certain how well and quickly that important work will be
conducted. Much will depend on the detailed work that we do with
interested groups, Department by Department, during the
statements’ production.
The Bill sets out the proposal
for the important concept of national policy statements as the
foundation for handling decisions about investment in major
infrastructure. In this clause stand part debate, we are considering
the role of the IPC in making determinations within the framework that
the national policy statements will provide. I have said previously
that if the IPC is set up to consider applications, it can do so only
if there is a national policy statement. In advance of any statement,
it would not consider any relevant major infrastructure applications;
that would be a matter for the current arrangements—in most
cases, involving the Secretary of State.
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): Will the IPC be
consulted about the policy statement, or will it come to the IPC
prepared and discussed?
John
Healey:
I suppose the honest answer is that I do not
really know, but as national policy statements are about policy and the
IPC’s role is to determine applications within the framework of
policy, as set by Government through the parliamentary process and
public consultation, I cannot see a reason why it should automatically
be consulted. I shall come on to the IPC’s reporting, but once
it is in operation, it will be required to report annually, and the
report will cover the decisions that it has arrived at within the
framework of national policy statements. It may comment in its annual
report on the nature of the national policy statement as a framework
for it to determine the applications, which it is charged to
do.
Mr.
Curry:
If the IPC were to be consulted, I cannot see what
the legislation will do at all. The Minister says that its whole
purpose is transparency and clarity, and to make a decision between
policy making and decision taking. If the IPC is consulted, the very
process of overlap, which he says he is trying to get away from, will
be resurrected, so it does not make sense.
4.14
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
4.29
pm
On
resuming—
John
Healey:
I was about to respond to the intervention of the
right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, but he may want to clarify it,
so I had better give way
again.
Mr.
Curry:
The timetable that the Minister set out was
helpful, and I would be grateful to hear it again. The point is that
during the nuclear statement last week the Government invited
applications for new nuclear power stations. Is he saying that no
application can be made or entertained until such time as a planning
policy statement has been through all its stages of approval and is
therefore the gospel for the IPC? Or is he saying that applications
could come in earlier, but would have to go through the existing
planning procedures? That is the key I am trying to get
to.
John
Healey:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman,
although I did get the point and the question the first time around.
[
Interruption.
] Perhaps he finds it helpful to
clarify it in his own mind. The issue is this. All elements of the new
system are important, but there may be a period in which some elements
are in place, but not all elements, including the national policy
statements that have been fully through the process and established. In
a situation where no fully fledged national policy statement is agreed
and in place—one could use the nuclear example, but it could
apply to any—the Secretary of State would take the decision, as
now.
If the IPC was
already in place in advance of the national policy statement, the IPC
would consider that application under the single consent regime. It
would not take the decision, but it would recommend what decision to
take to the Secretary of State, who would take that decision. Once the
IPC and the national policy statement relevant to a particular
application are in place, creating the single consent regime and the
principal reference point for such decisions, the IPC will consider the
application and take the decision in reference to that principal
framework. If—this is the final possibility—there is no
national policy statement in place and the IPC is not up and running,
any application for such a relevant project that may be submitted will
be dealt with as now, and determined by the Secretary of
State.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sorry to labour this point, but I am trying to
put myself in the position of one of the companies or organisations
that wish to propose an infrastructure development. Has the Minister or
have any of his ministerial colleagues talked to any of the potential
contractors and asked whether they plan to propose an infrastructure
project before the national policy statements are in place? Are they
prepared to apply under the current system, or under the amalgamated
interim system that the Minister outlined, or will they wait until the
national policy statement is completed? Under the terms of the national
policy statement, they would have to pre-consult all the local people
before they put in the application? I remain
confused.
John
Healey:
With respect, if the hon. Lady wants potential
investors and applicants for major projects to be asked that question,
she will have to do so herself. I am not in a position to speak for
them. However, most of the companies that may be interested in this
sort of development or the investments that would be covered by the new
system and the role of the IPC are very critical of and frustrated by
the current process. They are strongly behind what we are trying to do.
They see in particular the value of a clear, single national policy
statement and a single consent regime and—this is why she has to
ask the question herself—different companies will be at
different stages in the process of considering any potential
application. She and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon will
know that such applications have a long lead time in corporate
terms.
If the hon.
Lady speaks in detail to some of these companies or their
representative associations, she will find that they welcome rather
than reject the sort of pre-application emphasis that the Bill
provides, not least because they recognise that, although, as we heard
in evidence, it will impose new obligations on them at that stage in
the process, it is likely to mean that their application is in better
shape before it comes to the IPC. The degree, if not of agreement or
acceptance, at least of the sense that people will be consulted and
have their views taken into account in how the application is framed
before it is considered by the IPC will strengthen the process. I will
respond in a moment to the point about risk mentioned by the hon.
Members for Beckenham and for Carshalton and
Wallington.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I am trying to
prĂ(c)cis what the Minister said in response to points raised by
other hon. Members. The hon. Lady argued that perhaps we should see
whether the existing new measures can deliver what we want prior to the
creation of an IPC. The Minister said that no application would be
considered by that body for a couple of years at least, because we have
to wait for the NPSs to be introduced. On that basis, could not the
creation of an IPC be delayed until we see whether those provisions are
working?
John
Healey:
I do not want to be too hard on the hon.
Gentleman, but that is a typical Liberal view: duck the difficult
decision and put it off until a later
stage.
John
Healey:
Yes, and it is unfortunately also characteristic
of the hon. Lady’s party at the moment, as it is ducking the
really difficult decisions. I explained why simply sitting back and
waiting for the changes to be introduced, even if they are expanded to
cover other regimes, is simply not good enough given the pressures and
the imperatives in several important areas. I cannot accept the hon.
Lady’s
argument.
I shall
press on, because when the hon. Member for North Cornwall feels the
need to prĂ(c)cis what I am saying, it is a sign that I am being
too long-winded.
The
evidence sessions last week examined the average number of applications
that the IPC was likely
to consider each year. Our estimate, which was set out in the most
recent impact assessment, was about 45. When asked about the historical
analysis of applications that would fall into the IPC category and
about protection, I said that I would let the Committee have further
details. Page 30 of the impact assessment—the thick, rather
fetching green-covered document that the hon. Lady has in front of
her—shows how the estimate of about 45 a year is broken down by
sector. It may not be entirely clear in the document, but those figures
are based both on the historical trend—the assessment that I was
urged to ensure had been undertaken—for the past 10 years, and
on discussion with the key Departments on what they would regard as
reasonable and likely for such applications in future years. I hope
that that is helpful to the
Committee.
The hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington apologised and explained that he
was unable to join the Committee this afternoon, but I said that I
would answer his questions. First, I do not accept the contention of
Friends of the Earth that the Bill necessarily undermines the
legitimacy of the process.
John
Healey:
I will give way in a moment, as I want to finish
my remarks. In spite of our discussions, Friends of the Earth have not
fully considered or perhaps even understood what opportunities there
will be for public views and concerns to be heard within the process,
or how the Bill strengthens and protects the right to be heard.
Secondly, I do not accept Friends of the Earth’s contention that
the Bill will necessarily lead to more direct action against the
process for which we are legislating, although that organisation and
other groups and interests may object to particular applications and
they may demonstrate against
them.
Mr.
Curry:
The hon. Gentleman referred to page 30 of the
impact assessment regarding the number of nationally significant
infrastructure projects. Will he explain what the decimal point is
about?
John
Healey:
A figure of 0.1 in the table indicates that an
application is expected, on average, about once every 10 years.
[
Interruption.
] May I turn to the question raised
by the Liberal Democrat spokesman and the hon. Member for Beckenham,
which is the suggestion that somehow the new process is likely to risk
a greater number of and greater exposure to legal challenges?
[
Interruption.
]
John
Healey:
Thank you, Mr. Illsley. I will give way
if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy wants to intervene. He is
chuntering away at the moment and I cannot hear what he is saying.
[
Interruption.
] I can either give way now or we
could return to this matter at a more appropriate stage, later in the
Bill.
Mr.
Llwyd:
The Minister is doing his level best to explain the
position, but I am not sure that he is correct that the figure of 0.1
means that there will be one
application per 10 years. In that way, 0.9 would mean that there would
be nine applications in 10 years. With respect, that cannot be
correct.
John
Healey:
What that figure means is that over a 10-year
period, we would expect about nine applications for that category of
scheme—gas and coal-fired electricity generation. I am sorry if
Opposition Members are having trouble with the figures, but if they
wish to study them, we will return to them in more detail at a later
stage.
I turn to the
legitimate concern about whether the new system is designed in a way
that will leave it open to more legal challenges. We have considered
this issue very carefully, as would be expected. We believe that by
being more systematic in giving opportunities for views to be
registered, by being quicker, by being more transparent and by
separating the policy making and the decision making, the new system
will not be more exposed to legal challenge. However, any new system
takes some time to bed down and is often tested legally when
introduced, so I cannot guarantee that there will be a reduction in
legal challenges. We can expect legal challenges in the early days as
people, understandably, test the system. However, the system will be
clearer and we believe that it will produce better
applications.
On
balance, our assessment of the risk that the hon. Member for North
Cornwall is concerned about is that it is likely to be less. Although
as an elected politician it grieves me to say so, people may—I
put it no more strongly than that—more readily accept the
decision of an independent body set up and conducting its business in
the way proposed than a decision of politicians. The general point is
that we cannot be certain, but we are confident that the new system
will not be open to greater legal challenge. Because of its design, we
expect the number and extent of legal challenges to decline, over
time.
Robert
Neill:
Following that logic through, has the Minister
considered that we could say that the judiciary is regarded as
independent—it takes the judicial oath? Why not create a
planning division of the High Court to deal with these matters rather
than have the complication of the IPC? It is not unknown for High Court
judges to preside over planning inquiries. Use that route if someone is
needed who is seen to be independent, rather that create this
additional bureaucracy.
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman speaks as a lawyer. If he wants
to press and develop that point he should table an amendment for
discussion.
Mr.
Curry:
Will at least the chairman and the vice-chairman of
the IPC be subject to parliamentary confirmation hearings and
parliamentary confirmation of their appointment? That would reinforce
their neutrality and status in the public
eye.
John
Healey:
Those are proper matters for Parliament and the
arrangements that we set up for parliamentary consideration. That is an
interesting point of debate, which should be explored at the
appropriate point of the
Bill.
4.45
pm
I turn to
amendments Nos. 3 and 46, and will try to deal specifically with the
points raised by the hon. Lady. I have tried to explain, and hope that
I have done so, that the IPC is a part of the system that we regard as
essential. The Committee, and Parliament more generally, will have
ample opportunity to debate the IPC, as we have done this afternoon and
will continue to do, and finally to approve it. Given the level of
debate and scrutiny for the proposal, I cannot see the case for
arrangements that require Parliament to undertake the process again,
through a regulation-making procedure at some later point, in order for
the IPC to be set up. In the meantime, if and when the Bill is given
Royal Assent, we would be unable to proceed and to set up the IPC
formally.
The hon.
Lady was concerned that the reporting arrangements would just be
accounts, or figures. They will not just be accounts—the annual
report would also include details of the commission’s
performance and discharge of its responsibilities. It would include
details of its use of some of the powers that it may be given, such as
the compulsory purchase order, and it would also contain other issues
that could be prescribed by the Secretary of State. I am ready to
consider the things that members on both sides of the Committee may
consider appropriate for the Secretary of State to prescribe in that
report, and the Bill gives us the power to do that. Formerly, the
Secretary of State would lay the report because that is how we do our
business, but the chair of the IPC could and would be held to account
by any Select Committee arrangement that the House decided to put in
place. That Committee would be able to question the chair directly on
the performance and conduct of the IPC and the content of the
report.
Hon. Members
will remember the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member
for Barnsley, East and Mexborough during last week’s sitting. He
is a member of what was the Education and Skills Committee, and is now
a Committee in one of the new Departments. His point was this: the
chief inspector from Ofsted reports and accounts directly to that
Committee twice a year. That is an interesting model and I have checked
it out. It is done by convention rather than legislation, and functions
by the determination of that Select Committee. The process may be open,
if it wants, for the future Select Committee to examine. However,
Ofsted’s formal method of reporting, and the reports laid to
Parliament and picked up and scrutinised by the Select Committee are,
as I have described, via the Secretary of State, although they are
Ofsted’s reports.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): That is a very
helpful comment. As a member of the Communities and Local Government
Committee, I think the Committee will want to consider that matter
carefully—as it will the idea of confirmation hearings. Would
Ministers be prepared to go that extra step further? Instead of saying
that they have a person who they want to appoint and have a friendly
chat with, they could say that they are minded to make the appointment,
subject to any inquiry that the Select Committee may hold, or any
interview with it, and take
on board their comments before finalising the appointment. That might go
a little further towards reassuring
Members.
John
Healey:
My hon. Friend tempts me. It rather reminds me of
the sorts of debates we had when I was leading the Statistics and
Registration Service Bill through Parliament in the last
Session.
I am reminded of the strong
case for the Treasury Committee to take an active role and interest in
the appointment of the chairman of the Statistics Board. Perhaps that
is something that we can return to at the appropriate point in the
Bill, to look at that proposition in more detail, if my hon. Friend the
Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe wants to develop
it.
The hon. Member
for Beckenham is trying to restrict the functions of the IPC to those
that could be conferred by or through the Bill and no other
legislation. The problem with that is that the reference to other Acts
is necessary so that we can require the IPC to discharge functions that
may arise under other legislation. It is also necessary, and I think
all members of the Committee will appreciate this, for future-proofing
such legislation, particularly when it is set out in primary
legislative terms. For example, the nature of the environmental impact
assessment, which exercised a number of Members during the
evidence-taking session, is set out under a European directive. It will
need to be transposed into UK law and in relation to
decisions—at least some decisions—that the IPC will take.
For instance, we may require that there is a duty on the IPC, in
considering any applications for which an environmental impact
assessment is required under the European directive, to ensure that it
is being conducted properly as part of the application. Without the
provision we would be unable to do that. I say to the hon. Lady that it
is not a provision to try to smuggle in a determination for mission
creep of the commission; it is a sensible and essential element to
ensure that the IPC can do the job that we require it to do, not just
when we set it up in 2009, but for the
future.
In summary,
the IPC is an important part of our proposals to create a new system
for dealing with applications for major investments and major
infrastructure. It will help us to reach decisions in a way that is
more efficient, speedy and predictable. It will improve the
accountability and clarity of the system. It will also reinforce the
ability of the public and communities to participate effectively and
have their views heard during that process. We have thought long and
hard about how the IPC should be set up; how it should be constituted
and the functions that it should have. I hope that members of the
Committee will allow the clause to stand part so that we can move on to
the detailed consideration of the IPC, which of course is not in the
clause but in schedule
1.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am enormously grateful to the Minister. I am sure
that he is relieved to have a Bill as exciting as the Planning Bill
after the statistics Bill.
I am not reassured about the
amendments or the clause. The Minister tried hard to put a time scale
on the introduction of the practicalities of the Bill. I shall
certainly be taking up his invitation to get hold of the contractors,
to ask them whether they have any intention of bringing forward any
form of planning application before the national policy statements are
in place. I shall be very interested in the answer and, hopefully, at
some point I shall get an answer that I can report to the
Committee.
I shall refer briefly to
limiting the role of the commissioners to the Bill. I understand
absolutely the Minister’s points about Acts that need changing
to create the single consent regime and about future legislation, but
the problem is that that is not specified in the Bill. It must be
possible to introduce an amendment to ensure that the powers given to
the commissioners in the Bill are not retrospective and will not apply
to older Acts, because otherwise they could be used in ways that were
not originally intended. That is my concern. I am not a lawyer, but it
does not take much imagination to work out that our learned friends
could raise such concerns in the future.
Furthermore,
given our concerns about the time scale, when Ministers want to
introduce the requirement for an independent planning commission, a
further opportunity to discuss whether it is necessary should be
provided. I would like to vote on our amendment providing for a
statutory instrument. I am sure everybody has gathered that we think
that the clause is unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that we can also
vote on clause stand part. I would be happy to vote on amendments Nos.
1 and 3 together, and then on clause stand part separately, although I
am not quite sure how that would work formally. I simply want to place
on the record our objections to the clause and our support for the
amendments.
The
Chairman:
For clarification, is the hon. Lady asking for
three votes on clause 1—on amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and on clause
stand
part?
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
11.
Division
No.
2
]
AYESNOES
Question accordingly
negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
3, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end
insert—
‘(4)
This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of
State may by order made by statutory instrument
appoint.’.—[Mrs.
Lait.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
11.
Division
No.
3
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Motion made, and Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes
7.
Division
No.
4
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 17 January 2008 |