Schedule
1
The
infrastructure planning
commission
5
pm
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 214, in
schedule 1, page 107, line 8, leave
out ‘at least’ and insert ‘no more
than’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 215, in
schedule 1, page 107, line 10, at
beginning insert ‘no more than
12’.
No. 216,
in
schedule 1, page 107, line 13, after
‘effectively’, insert ‘,
fairly’.
Mrs.
Lait:
I do not think that we will take too long over the
amendments, but we want to ensure that the commission, which, sadly, we
seem to have been landed with, does not turn into an enormous great
quango costing us all vast sums of money, so it seemed to us that the
best way to do so would be to limit the number of deputy chairmen and
the number of commissioners.
We have
our concerns about the number of cases that will be brought forward and
the time that they will take, and taken together, the two will clog up
the system very quickly. However, we want to ensure that the commission
does not become over-large and over-mighty, absorbing too much of the
costs associated with the planning system, so we have tabled amendments
Nos. 214 and 215
Amendment No. 216 deals with a
different point, because we want to ensure that the commissioners have
regard not only to effectiveness and efficiency, to which the Minister
has referred, but to fairness. It has probably become clear from the
worries that we have already enunciated that we have serious concerns,
as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, about
the right to be heard of the little people. We must also ensure that
when a point is made and new information comes forward that the
promoter or contractor of a scheme has not considered—one can
imagine that they would be horrified that such a thing had happened,
but it is not unknown—they, too, have the right to be heard and
to challenge the information, so that they, too, feel that they have
had a fair hearing. We want to include in the Bill that the commission
should act fairly, as well as effectively and efficiently. That
explains and sets out the reasons for the
amendment.
Dan
Rogerson:
The hon. Lady did not explain clearly what is
behind the amendments. She will be aware of where my views lie from our
recent discussion on whether or not we should have an IPC at all.
However, I am concerned that, if the Bill proceeds through the House
and we are to have an IPC, limiting the number of its members may
hamper its effectiveness. We have heard that the number of schemes may
approach some 40 a year. My concern is that if groups of
commissioners are considering that many applications, limiting the
number of commission members that severely might well cause a huge
number of problems, even given the facility to have single
commissioners, about which I have grave doubts, although we will come
to that later. However, I am tempted by her argument that we want to
avoid the commission’s growing in scope by drawing in further
work through the provisions that we have already
discussed—further Bills coming forward and adding to the work of
the commission later on. I am sympathetic to what she has to say,
although I have a caveat. I am concerned that, if we are to have a
commission, we need to make sure that it can carry out the job set for
it.
Amendment No. 216
is on adding fairness, and it would be a brave Member of Parliament who
stood here and said that they did not want to see fairness in any
legislation. However, I will have to wait and see what the Minister
says in response. In summary, this is a useful debate, although I have
concerns about amendments Nos. 214 and 215, were they to be
accepted.
James
Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): This is a
sensible group of amendments. Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 get to the
heart of the problem and the scale of the IPC, if it goes
ahead.
I am confused
by the question of the numbers. The schedule mentions two deputy
chairmen, and the impact assessment mentions three. Could the Minister
clarify that, simply so that the IPC will not come to a grinding halt
legally if there is a transition period when one person leaves before a
replacement is appointed? I am concerned about the numbers and
justifying the IPC in terms of both cost and effectiveness. Page 31 of
the impact assessment estimates the cost of a deputy chairman at some
£130,000. Nowadays, you can get a half-good Minister for that,
so it seems rather expensive.
Why does there need to be more
than one deputy chairman? A deputy chairman has two functions: one is
to deputise for the chairman; the other is a broader function, in which
case, there might be multiple deputy chairmen. Originally, and in the
impact assessment, three deputy chairmen were proposed, along with 30
commissioners. Before the Bill has even become an Act, that figure has
increased from 30 to 45. Can the Minister confirm that the number of
deputy chairmen will remain at three? If there is indeed a wider
function beyond simply deputising for the chairman when he is
incapacitated or in some way unable to perform his duties, does the
number of deputy chairmen need to increase much beyond three? Is that
why the schedule refers to at least two deputy chairmen but does not
apply a cap, which concerns me
greatly?
I will be
intrigued to hear the Minister’s reasoning for not accepting
amendment No. 216. Presumably, there is some other alternative to the
schedule’s effectively saying that the commission can act in a
manner that is not fair—that is very confusing—if the
Government do not want to include that amendment in some shape or
form.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I have no objection to the amendment, although I
rise without much enthusiasm. May I use this opportunity to ask the
Minister one simple and short question? If an infrastructure project
was designated for Wales, how many commissioners would be
involved—one or three? There seems to be some confusion on that
matter, so perhaps the Minister will answer the
question.
Mr.
Curry:
On a point of clarification, there may be a number
of deputy chairmen, but will they be in a hierarchy? Will there be a
senior deputy chairman and a second or third most senior one? If the
chairman falls under the proverbial bus, somebody will have to take
over the reins. Would the deputy chairmen be allocated broadly
according to sector and be expected to take the lead in their sector?
In other words, is there a structural reason for the number of deputy
chairmen, or is it simply that a few must be picked out of the
significant number of followers to take certain
responsibilities?
John
Healey:
I understand the concern about cost. It is right
that we are all concerned about the potential cost of any new body. We
have spelt out in the impact assessment the estimate of about £9
million for running
costs each year for the conduct of the commission’s important set
of functions. If members of the Committee pause and put that amount
into the context of the cost and value of the investments and projects
that the commission will consider, they will get a proper sense of
scale of the operation that we are setting up. The impact assessment
also gives a proper sense of how the framework set out in the
legislation will work, and puts some constraints on the scope of the
commission’s work, and therefore the cost of what it
does.
Amendments Nos.
214 and 215 would limit the commission to having two deputy chairs and
limit the overall number of commissioners to 15, as the hon. Lady
explained. Amendment No. 216 would add a requirement for the Secretary
of State, when appointing commissioners, to have regard to the
desirability of securing that the commission be able to perform its
functions fairly.
I
will start with the important issue of fairness. I understand that the
right hon. Gentleman is intrigued by this matter. Schedule 1 requires
the Secretary of State, when appointing commissioners, to
“have regard to the desirability
of securing that the Commission is able to perform its functions
effectively and
efficiently.”
Those
functions are defined in clause 1(2). Adding a requirement that they
must have regard to the desirability of securing that the commission be
able to perform its functions fairly draws a distinction between acting
effectively and acting fairly. I do not accept that distinction. Any
public body must always act fairly in performing its duties. That is a
basic tenet of administrative
law.
If the commission
acted in a manner that was unfair, it would be open to legal challenge
and it would rightly be held to account by the courts. Its decisions
would be more vulnerable to being overturned by the courts as a result,
and I think that we would all agree that that would hardly be
effective. If the commission is able to perform its functions
effectively, it must, by definition, be able to perform them fairly. In
other words, an effective commission is a fair
commission.
James
Duddridge:
I am confused as to why it has to be stated in
the Bill that an organisation should be effective and efficient, and
why there is not a presumption of that. I think that the distinction
the Minister is drawing regarding unfairness is that if a Department or
public body is ineffective or inefficient, that is not a matter for the
law. However, if it acts unfairly, that is a matter for the law and it
would be subject to legal challenge. If that is what he is saying, it
seems to be an odd, but coherent,
argument.
5.15
pm
John
Healey:
I feel that we might be making progress, and I am
grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he considers my argument coherent. I
hope that his observation will persuade the hon. Member for Beckenham
not to press the amendment. Clearly, constraining the
commission’s size would not be advisable if the hon. Lady wants
it to be an effective organisation that can embody a wide range of
expertise in the areas in which it needs to be effective, efficient and
fair.
The schedule refers to at least
two deputy chairs, and we estimated three in the regulatory impact
assessment in part to ensure that our calculations about the likely
resourcing of the IPC were fully adequate. We anticipate that the
deputy chairs will carry out functions first to support the role of the
chair. That is plausible and uncontentious, but they will also act as
commissioners in their own right. The principal reason for having at
least two deputy chairs is that it allows for a certain resilience of
the commission during the turnover of commissioners, or at times of
particular pressure of
work.
I hope that what
I have said will be sufficient to persuade the hon. Lady not to press
the amendment to a Division. If she does, I shall have to ask my hon.
Friends to oppose
it.
Mrs.
Lait:
I probably will not press the amendment to a
Division, but the way in which the Government and the Minister just
dismissed the cost of the quango versus the amount of the potential
investment in infrastructure did not show great concern for the poor
bloody
taxpayer.
Mr.
Curry:
That is an illogical comparison. We could compare
the cost of the Food Standards Agency with the turnover of the entire
British food industry and say that the agency costs absolutely nothing.
That is a way of simply saying that, for public expenditure, do not
bother counting it because it disappears in the broad picture. Treasury
Ministers, of which the Minister was one, should not be expressing that
argument. I have never heard them make it in the
past.
Mrs.
Lait:
I suspect that the Minister has been able to make it
because he has been freed from the Treasury. I am grateful to my right
hon. Friend for making that point. He put it infinitely better than I
ever could.
I accept
the argument about the commission having to be fair if it is to be
effective, but we have now teased that out of the Minister. It is on
the record, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I beg to move amendment No. 60, in
schedule 1, page 107, line 13, at
end insert
‘and must
have regard to the statutory duty upon it to discharge its functions in
accordance with the principles of sustainable
development.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment No. 53, in
clause 5, page 2, line 39, leave
out from ‘to’ to end of line 40 and
insert—
‘(i) one or more
specified descriptions of developments,
or
(ii) the natural
environment.’.
Amendment
No. 180, in
clause 5, page 3, line 4, leave
out from ‘an’ to end of line 5 and insert
‘environmental assessment in accordance with
the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Directive
2001/42/EC and regulations implementing that
Directive’.
Amendment
No. 236, in
clause 5, page 3, line 5, at
end insert
‘contained in an overarching
national infrastructure policy framework tying together the national
policy statements and creating a strategic framework for sustainable
development and any cross national
issue.’.
Amendment
No. 54, in
clause 5, page 3, line 5, at
end insert—
‘(3A) A
statement may only be designated under this section if the Secretary of
State is satisfied that the policies in the statement have due regard
to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate
change.
(3B) A statement
designated under this section must contain a statement that it is the
Secretary of State’s view that the requirement of subsection
(3)(a) is
satisfied.’.
Amendment
No. 226, in
clause 9, page 5, line 7, at
end insert ‘and the Independent Planning Commission’s
functions’.
Amendment
No. 57, in
clause 9, page 5, line 9, at
end add—
‘(3)
“Sustainable development” is defined as enabling people
to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life,
without compromising the quality of life of future
generations.’.
Amendment
No. 58, in
clause 9, page 5, line 9, at
end add—
‘(3) In carrying
out functions under sections 5 and 6 the Secretary of State shall have
regard to—
(a) all
relevant international obligations included under the Habitats
Directive;
(b) carbon
implications and targets set out for carbon
emissions;
(c) the biodiversity
duty in section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act
2006.’.
Clause
9 stand
part.
Amendment No.
192, in
clause 11, page 5, line 32, at
end insert—
‘(1A) No
statement referred to within subsection (1) above may be designated as
a national policy statement or referred to in such a statement unless
it has been subject to environmental assessment in accordance with the
Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Directive 2001/42/EC
and regulations implementing that
Directive.’.
Amendment
No. 56, in
clause 94, page 43, line 37, at
end insert—
‘(d) the
desirability of contributing to the mitigation of, and adaptation to,
climate
change.’.
Amendment
No. 59, in
clause 94, page 43, line 37, at
end insert—
‘(ba) whether
the development is consistent with the principles of sustainable
development,’.
Amendment
No. 64, in
clause 94, page 43, line 37, at
end insert—
‘(ba) its duty
to act in accordance with the principle of sustainable
development,’.
Amendment
No. 66, in
clause 94, page 43, line 37, at
end insert—
‘(ba) any
representations made by the Environment
Agency,’.
Amendment
No. 67, in
clause 94, page 43, line 37, at
end insert—
‘(ba) any
representations made by the Countryside Council for
Wales,’.
Amendment
No. 68, in
clause 94, page 43, line 37, at
end insert—
‘(ba) any representations made by Natural
England,’.
Amendment
No. 70, in
clause 98, page 45, line 20, at
end insert ‘or global climate
change’.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I will ask the Minister to respond in due course
about the Welsh IPC members. He did not mention their number in the
previous
debate.
John
Healey:
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for overlooking
that point. He did not intervene to remind me of it. In respect of any
application to Wales, we would expect that at least one of the
commissioners who were considering it as part of the IPC’s work
would have been nominated by the Welsh
Assembly.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 60, 57 and 58.
Amendment No. 60 is fairly straightforward and clear. It would amend
schedule 1 and insert a duty of observing the principles of sustainable
development. I rather suspect that the Minister will say that the
amendment would be otiose and unnecessary, but I suggest that there is
a certain symmetry with clause 9. I think that it would be a good thing
for the Bill to refer to the need to have regard to the principles of
sustainable development.
Amendment No. 57 would amend
clause 9 by giving a definition of sustainable development. It employs
what is commonly accepted as a standard
definition:
“‘Sustainable
development’ is defined as enabling people to satisfy their
basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising
the quality of life of future
generations.”
That is one
fairly popular definition of sustainable development, and I would like
the clause to be amended to set it out.
Amendment No. 58 is also
self-explanatory. It would amend clause 9 by placing certain duties on
the Secretary of State. I will be interested to hear what the Minister
has to say about that, but I suspect that his answer will be that the
amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is in some way
bound to have regard to those issues in any event. The amendment would
be a good vehicle to put those obligations in the Bill since,
hopefully, we are all serious about those matters. Climate change and
sustainability are two of the main subjects to which we should be
devoting our time, and because the Bill relates to planning, it clearly
and most definitely has a huge role to
play.
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op):
I am slightly confused about where the hon. Gentleman
is applying the principle because clause 9 relates to the
responsibilities of the Secretary of State and schedule 1 refers to the
responsibility of the commission. In relation to the commission, the
proposal presumably would be in parallel with legislation that places a
responsibility for having regard to sustainable development on, for
instance, the National Assembly for Wales. Are Ministers or the body
the target of the hon. Gentleman’s
proposals?
Mr.
Llwyd:
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misread
the amendments. The amendment to schedule 1 clearly states that the
Secretary of State must have regard when he performs his functions.
Amendment
No. 58 to clause 9 would do exactly the same thing. The point that he
made, I am afraid, was not a good
one.
Alun
Michael:
I was only listening to what you
said.
Mr.
Llwyd:
With respect, I have referred to the Bill, and if
one reads the parts of the Bill that I have pointed out, one will see
that this is fairly
clear.
I hope that
those duties can be inserted in the Bill. Recently, there have been
huge problems with flooding, and we may yet see more, especially in
Gloucester, the midlands and other areas such as north Wales. We must
have regard to sustainable development because climate change is
clearly upon us. If we do not have regard to a proper sustainable means
of planning, we are shoring up huge problems for the future. I suspect
that the Minister will say that these duties are unnecessary and that
the Secretary of State is mindful of them at all times, but I hope that
he might be able to accept at least one of the amendments in the spirit
in which it is offered.
Dan
Rogerson:
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns
about sustainability and his view that we need to include something
about that in the Bill. I shall speak particularly to amendments Nos.
53, 54 and 56.
Amendment No. 53 would make
provision for an NPS on the natural environment. While the Minister
will no doubt talk about overarching commitments, there are a number of
benefits to having a specific NPS on the natural environment. It could
inform the other national policy statements with regard to particular
concerns about biodiversity, and it would set within the Bill the
guarantees and the wins that have been achieved on securing a
commitment to biodiversity over the years through planning guidance and
other legislation. As we are moving to a new regime with national
policy statements and while the other guidance remains out there, it
would be helpful if part of the new regime reflected the importance of
the environment.
We
heard earlier from the hon. Member for Newbury, who is not with us at
present, about the issues surrounding the need for a certain bug to get
from one side of the Newbury bypass to the other. Those examining the
Bill outside this place might assume that on the one hand there are
developers who want to press forward with these schemes, who want
quicker decisions and who want to use the Bill to ensure that things
happen quickly, and that, on the other hand, there are those who are
opposed to schemes and who find matters in the national environment
that they feel would be put at risk and therefore seek to delay such
schemes. Actually, if we considered the natural environment through a
dedicated national policy statement, we might help to settle some of
the questions that come up later and ensure that we are both
guaranteeing biodiversity, which hopefully we all seek to defend, and
ensuring that an application is considered speedily. If we do not go
down the route of a national policy statement on this issue, there
might be a risk that the questions that such statements aim to settle
before the application stage might be raised in that particular area of
policy.
The Wildlife Trusts has been
pressing hard—I am sure that all members of the Committee will
have heard from it. It draws particular attention to what the Stern
review said about looking at the landscape as a whole with regard to
climate change and the way in which things are changing, and the need
to ensure that there are such things as wildlife corridors. That has
been done through other guidance, but it is important that, as we move
to the new framework proposed by the Bill, the gains that have been
made are not
lost.
Amendments Nos.
54 and 56 relate more specifically to the need for the Bill to refer to
climate change. We heard the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy
speak about sustainability and sustainable development. An important
aspect of the framework would be to have specific reference to climate
change in two senses, the first of which is the mitigation of climate
change. Other Bills were proposed in the Queen’s Speech to
address that directly, but it is important to see a connection between
all of those efforts and to ensure that this Bill also makes its
contribution. Therefore, in the provision of national policy
statements, we should consider whether they meet our aspirations as a
country to mitigate the effects of climate
change.
5.30
pm
Where we have
observed that the climate is already changing—a number of
organisations raise that issue and, sadly, present events show how at
risk we are from sudden changes in the climate—we need policies
to ensure that we adapt to the changing climate and its consequences
for us. The amendments that my hon. Friend and I have tabled seek to
ensure that the policies and guidelines that have been built up over a
time with regard to biodiversity in the natural environment are
guaranteed by the new framework. Secondly, we need a reference to
climate change both to mitigate its effects and to slow it down
wherever possible through planning policy decisions, and to have regard
to the important issue of adapting to climate change to ensure that our
communities are safe going forward.
James
Duddridge:
I wish to make a few short points. There were a
number of contributions on Second Reading on both sustainability and
climate change that called on the Minister to beef up the Bill. We urge
him to reconsider and we shall listen to his comments very
closely.
I was
intrigued by what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said about another
national policy statement on the natural environment. In previous
discussions and in oral evidence, I have been keen to reduce the number
of national policy statements, but his argument was compelling. I would
be minded to support it if it came to a vote. The national policy is
made up of almost individual silos that are not subject to an overall
national policy framework. Perhaps a natural environment national
policy statement would provide that framework in a crucial
area.
Mr.
Curry:
How would my hon. Friend envisage the national
policy statement he is talking about marrying with the Climate Change
Bill which is going through another place at the
moment?
James
Duddridge:
I certainly do not have a crystal ball. I
happily pass that on to the Minister, who is responsible for these
matters. I am sure that he will want to both note my right hon.
Friend’s point and deal with it in great
detail.
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): I wish to speak briefly
to amendment No. 60 in the name of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant
Conwy. I dare say he is correct when he says that he suspects that the
Minister will say that his amendment is otiose. But that description is
not entirely right. It is clear that clause 9 imposes an obligation on
the Secretary of State to exercise the functions contained in clauses 5
and 6 so as to fulfil, so far as possible, the object of contributing
to the achievement of sustainable development. But it also seems
valuable for the Secretary of State in the appointment of the
commission to ensure that the commission itself also acts in connection
with those principles so as to achieve that objective. It does not seem
otiose to that extent. It is rather an underlining process so I
therefore suggest that the amendment is desirable and should be
supported.
Mrs.
Lait:
I begin by congratulating the hon. Members for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for North Cornwall on tabling their
amendments because they register the concern we all feel. I am sure
there that there is nobody in the room who does not feel that the issue
of sustainable development is pressing upon us and needs to be
emphasised as much as possible, particularly in this Bill. We hope that
tabling our amendments will be a practical way of ensuring that this
Bill and the commission take into account the significance and need for
sustainable development.
Amendment No. 180 is more
specific, insisting that the commission takes into account the
strategic environmental assessment directive. Amendment No. 236 is to
ensure that sustainable development is across all of the national
policy statements. Amendments Nos. 226, 57 and 58 reinforce the
sustainable issue and No. 192 tries to get some clarity on the existing
policy issue of sustainability within areas such as air
transport.
The point
we have all been lobbied on, particularly by the Wildlife Trusts, is
that there should be a national policy statement on the natural
environment. I have sympathy at first glance but I hope that the
Minister will reassure us that within each NPS will be a specific
requirement that the natural environment be taken into account in all
of the different infrastructure issues addressed.
We put down amendment No. 180
to ensure that the commission takes the SEA very seriously. It is a
legal requirement. It encompasses many of the issues involved in
sustainable development. Even industry and particularly the big
contractors, who will be putting forward most of these infrastructure
proposals, are well aware that their proposals will need to be
justified under sustainable development criteria because they often
present challenges to sustainable development. Much as we need many and
better roads, it will be interesting to see whether the Highways
Agency, with the Government as its sponsor, is going to justify those
new roads in terms of sustainable
development, other than taking into account the needs of the economy
within sustainable development. We wish to see, as everyone
does, the commission take very close account of the environment and the
need to ensure that it is improved and that we do our bit to ensure
that the impact of climate change is reduced. Getting the strategic
environmental assessment into all the commission’s
considerations is paramount.
Once the NPSs have gone through
this place and been examined outside and come to a conclusion, we would
hope that all of them would be consistent with one another and with
sustainable development. The commission will have to pick apart the
implications of the NPS and we hope that it would develop a policy of
consistency, so that it is not open to challenge because it takes one
decision in one area that turns out to be inconsistent with a decision
in another. Amendment No. 236 would ensure that the commission retains
consistency on issues such as sustainable development.
Amendment No. 192
deals with existing policy, which is a problem that we will come to in
greater detail. It is tabled because we are still not clear about how
the Government are planning to translate current policy into national
policy statements without undertaking the type of consultation that the
new policy statements will require. Should the air policy statement,
and indeed the nuclear statement, be taken as the basis for the
national policy statement in those areas, the commission, when it comes
to implement it and make planning decisions, must ensure that the
decision it takes is based on the highest standards. At the moment the
statement is—flawed is probably the wrong word, because it is
not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete in terms of the NPS on air
transport. We want to ensure that the commission is more than alive to
the problems that we envisage of translating current existing policy
into the future.
In a
sense, clause 9 needs no more discussion, as we all agree that it
should stand part of the Bill. However, we hope that the Minister will
feel free to accept our amendments and to ensure that our concerns and
fears about sustainable development are met under the terms of clause
9.
John
Healey:
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is
right. I do not think that his amendments are necessary. Judging from
the well tempered and constructive tone of the debate, I think that we
have common aims for sustainable development, and a common concern for
the environment as part of the proper formulation of national policy
statements and the decisions of the commission. However, we perhaps
have a difference of view about how best and most appropriately to
carry that out. I have made it clear, and the Secretary of State has
made it clear in her statement to the House, that it is essential for
sustainable development to be central to the consideration of any
future infrastructure needs. As has already been discussed, under the
new system, Ministers will set out national policy on national
infrastructure projects in policy statements—that will be the
key framework and the touchstone through which we achieve our aims.
Those national policy statements will consider a range of relevant
Government policies. They must set out clearly how the
Government’s objectives for the particular type of infrastructure
in question are integrated with other policies. In that way, they will
integrate environmental, social and economic policies with the specific
aim of contributing to sustainable development.
We must recognise that careful
work will be required to formulate national policy statements in that
way. Clause 5 requires any Secretary of State preparing a national
policy statement to carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of
each of the proposed national policy statements, in order to assess its
impact before it can be designated. Under the terms of the Bill,
Ministers will be under a duty to designate or review a policy
statement with the specific objective of contributing to sustainable
development. I hope that hon. Members will also recognise that this
provision in the Bill is a change from the White Paper. In our view, it
is a strengthening, and it is made in response to views that we had as
a result of the White
Paper.
5.45
pm
National policy
statements, as we have discussed, will be subject to strong
parliamentary scrutiny. All members of the Committee expect that
scrutiny to test all aspects of their suitability, including whether
Ministers have fully complied with their duty to contribute to
sustainable development in their draft and proposed national policy
statements. Amendments Nos. 60, 56, 59, 64 and 226 would, in addition,
place a duty on the commission to consider in the decision-making
process the sustainability of development and the desirability of
mitigating climate change. That is where the amendments tabled by the
hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy are not necessary, because the
commission will be obliged to take decisions in accordance with
national policy statements. It is not necessary to require it
separately to contribute to sustainable
development.
Amendments
Nos. 54, 58, 180 and 192 would require that national policy statements
are subject to strategic environmental assessments, in accordance with
European law. They would require the Secretary of State to have regard
to obligations under certain provisions of UK and EU law and to be
satisfied that the policy set out in a national policy statement had
regard to the mitigation of climate change. The production of national
policy statements means that Ministers must have regard to all relevant
EU and domestic law, including the new Climate Change Bill, which will
impose a general duty on Ministers to meet specified carbon targets and
carbon budgets and oblige them to publish proposals and policies for
meeting them. So, we build into the production of this essential
document, the national policy statement, both the duty on sustainable
development and the concerns about climate change that are set out in
the primary legislation—the Climate Change Bill. A strategic
environmental assessment required under EU law will be carried
out.
Dan
Rogerson:
I do not for a moment imagine that the Climate
Change Bill will not be enacted, but we need to consider where this
Bill impacts on the current state of affairs. To start predicting what
other Bills may do before they become Acts is dangerous territory to
step into. We have already made considerable progress
in guidance, some of which may not be in legislation. I hope that, by
accepting some of the amendments, the Minister can ensure that some of
that change in the way that we think about planning for the future can
be put into the Bill.
John
Healey:
I am not predicting; I am explaining the policy
purpose of the Climate Change Bill and, therefore, the impact that we
intend it to have on the conduct of Government—the decisions and
policy proposals that Government Ministers will take as a result.
Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 require the commission to have regard to the
views of certain stakeholders concerned with the environment when
taking decisions. The Bill, although not in this clause, has provision
to prescribe consultees for the national policy statement process in
clause 7 and for project developments in clause 37, and to do so by
secondary legislation. Rather than specifying bodies at this stage and
trying to put them in the Bill, it is surely better and more flexible
for the long term to do that through secondary legislation, and to
allow us to take the wide range of views about what should be
appropriate statutory consultees at each stage of the
process.
Beyond that,
all bodies, whether they are prescribed consultees or not, will be able
to make their views clear at each stage of the process. The views of
all interested parties will be fully considered both in the national
policy statement and in the commission’s work, so I do not
believe the amendments are either sensible at this stage in primary
legislation or particularly
helpful.
Amendment No.
70 looks to add global climate change to the shortlist of criteria the
Secretary of State could base a call-in of an application determined by
the IPC, however I have already explained that national policy
statements will integrate all relevant environmental concerns,
including climate change. The commission must take its decisions within
this framework, so it is not necessary to have this separate duty in
the Bill.
Finally,
amendment No. 57 adds a definition of sustainable development. This is
difficult. If one considers the different elements of international,
national, regional level and local machinery of governance, each will
be likely to focus on different aspects of sustainable development. I
think it is unlikely we will be able to come up with a single, unified
definition of sustainable development that will serve all the purposes
we may require at every level within the system. I do not believe these
amendments would add to the Bill and they may indeed create a problem
for it. As to whether, uniquely if this amendment were passed, the Bill
should specify there should be a national policy statement on the
natural environment, it is not entirely clear to me—as the hon.
Member for Beckenham was in a gentle way suggesting, not least to her
own Back Benchers—it is not entirely clear what a national
policy statement on the natural environment would add, nor what it
would contain and it is reasonable to expect that concerns that may
underlie the Wildlife Trusts’ advocacy of such an NPS would be
properly taken into account through the duty of sustainable development
and in any environmental impact assessments carried out during the
process.
I hope hon. Members will feel we
have had a useful debate on this, I do recognise, as the hon. Member
for Rochford and Southend, East reminded us, these are matters that
came up constantly on Second Reading and I am sure will be returned to
during the passage of the Bill. I hope they are tabled this afternoon
as probing amendments and that hon. Members will not press them, but if
they do, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to oppose
them.
Mr.
Llwyd:
It has been an interesting debate and I accept what
the hon. Gentleman says, especially on listing of the various
agencies that might be consulted and I accept what he says about clause
7 being the vehicle for that. Perhaps naming them in the Bill might be
prescriptive in some way and perhaps not helpful and I do stand
corrected on that. On the need for proper regard for sustainable
development, what the right hon. Gentleman says again is that the
national policy statement is the blueprint we all have to work to and
from. I have to say, reading clause 5, I do not know why some reference
could not be made to the environment. That debate may be for another
day. I think it would be a waste of time to press these amendments to a
vote, but I do hope we can return to clause 5 later, because maybe
clause 5 is a better vehicle for a declaration in the Bill.
I do, however, accept what the
right hon. Gentleman says: that in preparing the national policy
statement, which all relevant bodies would have to follow,
consideration must be given to sustainable development as a very
important factor in formulating that policy. I do understand that and I
am grateful to the Minister for the way he dealt with the points I have
raised. Therefore, as I am sure we will return to this issue at some
point, I do not intend to press my amendment to a
vote.
Dan
Rogerson:
Briefly, I note the Minister’s assurances
about the overarching nature of the Government’s commitment to
biodiversity and so on, and that the other national policy statements,
when they come forward, would have to have regard to that. However,
having been convinced by the Wildlife Trusts and others, I do think
there could be many positive benefits to having a separate NPS, one
being the ability to facilitate speedier and more efficient handling of
individual applications. In echoing what the hon. Member for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, I do not feel it would be helpful to press
these amendments to the vote at this stage. But I hope we will return
to these issues later
on.
Amendment, by
leave,
withdrawn
Question
proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Betts:
I would like to ask the Minister to think further
about the idea we talked about a few minutes ago relating to the
appointments of the Chair and possibly Deputy Chair of the
infrastructure planning commission. This was initially raised by the
right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. I recognise it is becoming
increasingly commonplace to have what are
called “confirmation hearings,” which are really meetings
between Select Committees and people who have been appointed to jobs.
Sir Bob Kerslake, who is going to be the new head of the Homes and
Communities Agency, will be coming before the Communities and Local
Government Committee in the near future to answer questions about the
nature of his job and what he intends to do. Essentially, however, it
does not really matter what questions we ask him or what responses he
gives or what we think about these answers. The appointment has already
been made: the Ministers have announced it and that is it.
I think
perhaps at this point, even with the Government’s commitment to
reinforcing Parliamentary democracy and Parliament’s role in
these matters, it is probably a bit much to think that the
responsibility for the actual appointment might be transferred to a
Select Committee. I wonder, however, if there is some halfway house,
where Ministers might indicate that it is their intention to appoint
someone, subject to the Select Committee having the opportunity to
question the person and report its findings to them. In the end, the
decision would be made by
Ministers, but I wonder whether
this would take Parliamentary involvement a little further forward,
with the Select Committee having a more meaningful role. Ministers
would be able to reflect on the hearing and the Committee’s
thoughts on it before making the final
appointment.
James
Duddridge:
I want to make two points, one on the interplay
between the various officers
—
5.59
pm
Si
tting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
6.15
pm
On
resuming—
James
Duddridge:
I rise to make two points. The first is about
the interplay in schedule 1 between the chairman, the chief executive,
and to a lesser degree, the deputy chairman. I have more experience of
private than public sector boards, but the Higgs report on the private
sector suggests good corporate practice and governance when the roles
of chief executive and chairman are separate, and when active
involvement takes place through the chief executive. On salaries, the
chief executive will be paid £140,000 and the chairman,
£150,000. Will the Minister confirm whether they are full-time
roles? What is the interplay and the crossover from corporate
governance best practice in the private sector and the public sector? I
should not want the schedule to set up issues of conflict, particularly
given the confusion already about the role of the deputy
chairman.
The second
issue is about paragraph 3 on tenure, which limits the appointments to
fixed terms between five and eight years. I am concerned about it for
two reasons. I see nothing in the Bill to prevent somebody from being
in office for eight years, stopping for one day, and then taking
another eight-year contract. Is that the schedule’s intention,
or by putting an end date
of no more than eight years, is it saying that it would be inappropriate
for anybody to serve as a commissioner, deputy chairman or
chairman—one of those individual roles—for longer than
eight years? I can
see how the Minister could make the case that it would be inappropriate
to serve on the organisation for longer than eight years in one role,
but it may be very appropriate for somebody to serve for longer than
eight years in two roles. I can envisage a situation in which the
chairman unexpectedly had to stand down, and for continuity purposes,
it made sense for a deputy chairman, who was near the end of their
tenure and doing very well, to take over and therefore serve a longer
tenure. There are merits to the cases for limiting the time, and for
extending it in exceptional circumstances, but I am unclear about the
intention and effect of schedule 1, so I should appreciate the
Minister’s clarification.
Mr.
Curry:
I wonder whether the Minister can lift the veil on
the sort of people who will be appointed to the commission. It will be
like a college of appointed cardinals, so I should quite like to see
some white smoke coming up the Minister’s chimney. He talks
repeatedly about expertise, but what does he mean? Expertise in what
precisely? We must be careful that we do not end up with people who are
seen as delegates of particular interest groups. It is clear that the
nuclear industry will want its person on the commission, that the ports
will want their person and that the CBI will wants its person. Hence,
the question about the way in which the Minister engineers appointments
so that they are seen to be independent, and so that they are of people
with expertise, is genuinely important.
Further, when the Minister says
expertise, can we be certain that expertise is the only factor in play?
I say the following entirely neutrally, but do the Government want a
commission with a certain gender, race or age balance? Will they not
consider appointing people over a certain age, or people who reach a
certain age during their appointment?
Dan
Rogerson:
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point.
At the heart of it lies the fact that the commission must not only be
independent, it must be seen to be independent. People may begin to
read particular points of view into people’s backgrounds. He has
not, for example, mentioned geographic place of residence. Where we see
schemes at either end of the country being in conflict with one
another, there may be such
issues.
Mr.
Curry:
That is absolutely right. In particular, if people
are to be nominated to take charge of particular enquiries, are they
going to be people who have a geographic affiliation to the area in
which they will take place? The Government have been talking about
regional Select Committees. I do not know what has happened to that
idea, which surfaced in a constitutional paper the Government produced
before the summer recess. It seems to have disappeared absolutely
without trace, but we might initially see whether they might have a
role in the scrutiny or nomination, if they are still on the
Government’s horizon and agenda.
What about independence? I
suppose it is a certainty that the chair will turn out to be a
lawyer—they usually do. Might it turn out to be somebody with
business experience and the organisational skills to be able to manage
a commission of 35 people, with a significant secretariat? We only have
one nomination. Friends of the Earth, I think, nominated Mr.
Tony Juniper. I am not sure that he is aware of, or has endorsed, his
own nomination, but it would be interesting to hear the
Minister’s response to that. We know that boards appoint
non-executive directors. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for
Rochford and Southend, East referred to the recommendations of the
Higgs report. Are some of these members to be non-executive in the
sense that they do not have any particular expertise, but
have—to use old-fashioned words—a certain amount of
wisdom and experience which they can bring to these
enquiries?
Given that
we have had a very short debate on the commission itself, I would like
very much to know the sort of person the Minister has in mind. There
will no doubt be a quota of academics; will the mandatory trade
unionist will find a place? How preoccupied are the Government with the
notion that there must be some sort of gender or race balance on the
committee? If expertise is the key, then of course the other things
cannot apply. I was very struck by the two charming ladies from the
Planning Inspectorate who gave evidence, and I have great confidence in
them handling these cases. These are important matters which, up to
now, we have not really discussed. Will the Minister indicate how he is
going to go about this, the sort of people and the sort of age ranges
we might see?
The
hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe emphasised the point I made
earlier about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny for these
appointments. What is needed is not a system like the Monetary Policy
Committee—where there has been a certain amount of argument
about whether they are able to make confirmation hearings, and about
the appointment itself—but a means of ensuring that, before the
confirmation takes place, Parliament can check whether there is some
profound objection to or problem with that person, and allowing
Parliament’s role in this process to begin at an earlier
stage.
Robert
Neill:
My hon. Friend finished on the question of
scrutiny. This is very important, not least because the more power
given to a body such as this—very substantial power in this
case—the more important it is that there should be some
parliamentary scrutiny of the appointments process. There can be some
scrutiny of Ministers, and if power is moved from Ministers to the
independent commission to carry out these roles, then it is important
that there is the maximum scrutiny of these people. They are neither
Ministers nor members of the judiciary with the obligations that their
oath involves. Let us therefore have some hold on them to make sure
they are appropriate. The precedent is, after all, accepted by the
Government in relation to appointments elsewhere: they added to the
Greater London Act 2007 the ability for the London assembly to carry
out scrutiny of
certain key appointments within the Greater London authority. What is
sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. We are willing to
have the same level of scrutiny by Parliament of those people who are
appointed to the commission. That is an important point and I hope that
we will get some reassurance on
it.
On the question of
tenure, I note that members of the commission will be able to be
reappointed. We would like some clarity on what the basis of
reappointment will be. Why is there a varying period of five to eight
years? Is that to get some degree of rotation or continuity? Is it the
intention that people can expect to be reappointed unless they have not
performed up to a certain level? How will that be monitored and how
will that process be transparent? How will we get away from the fear
that, because they do not have the judicial security of tenure, there
will be the temptation—when the Government have taken a pretty
clear line on certain things—to come up with the answer that
Government want? That is always a risk under such circumstances. We
therefore need to have more transparency about
tenure.
Remuneration
has also been referred to. Will the Minister help us with the
calculation that the Government have made on the total cost of
remuneration? There are to be a number of deputy chairs and a number of
full time commissioners, but there was also reference to some people
being part time. Has any thought been given to what that split will be,
on what basis, what the payment rates will be and what the total cost
will be?
The required
skill sets have been referred to, along with how that will be applied
to the balancing of particular panels. I was also interested in the
commission’s council, which is to be configured in an
interesting way. Under paragraph 6(4), ordinary members of the council
can be appointed for specific purposes. Am I right to think that that
is to be read as meaning that they will be appointed for a particular
application and that there will be a pool of councillors or is it
intended that the council should act in a more collegiate way, which
might, more normally, be understood from the meaning of the
word?
Under paragraph
7, the chair may appoint a commissioner, not within paragraph 6(4)(a)
or (b) to be an ordinary member of the council
“for a particular purpose or for
particular purposes”.
Is
that for the determining of a particular application? Is it for the
purpose of giving advice on a particular issue? Will they proceed by
unanimity or by a majority vote? Do all votes count equally under such
circumstances? Under paragraph 7(4), they can resign
“in relation to all, or some one
or more, of the purposes for which the person is an ordinary member of
the Council.”
What does
that mean? Under what circumstances does the Minister envisage
commissioners being appointed to the council for some purpose and being
barred from taking part in other issues? In a collegiate body, how will
they deal with the idea of different categories or grades of
commissioner? As I read it, it looks as if
paragraph 7(7) has a sort of quorum of five members. Is that the case?
What is the minimum and how would it
operate? What is the
relationship between the chief executive and the rest of the
commission? Is it intended that the chief executive will be recruited
from within the existing Planning Inspectorate or from within the civil
service? Is it intended for the position to go to somebody from
outside? Will it be a lawyer or a planner? There is some lack of
clarity, again.
In due
course, we would like much more information on how the delegation
arrangements will work, given the importance of the issues that will
potentially be dealt with. Will the public be aware of the scheme of
delegation? Will there be scope for parliamentary scrutiny of the
scheme of delegation? If the chairman of the commission appears before
Parliament in the way that the Minister has suggested, will we have the
opportunity to question him about how the scheme of delegation works? A
number of other issues are raised by this debate, which I hope the
Minister will be able to deal
with.
6.30
pm
Mrs.
Lait:
I thank the Committee for raising so many questions
about this long and not complex but certainly detailed description of
how the infrastructure planning commission should be appointed and
about its pay, rations, structure and proceedings. I hope the Minister
has been able to take note of all the questions, because I am about to
add some more. I have some questions from reading through. I am not
sufficiently a student of legislation to know whether or not this has
come straight off the shelf, but it certainly looks like a standardised
package, which is why there are so many questions emerging once we set
out the terms and conditions as set out in the schedule against the
functions of the commission as set out in the
Bill.
I suppose, which
may seem slightly odd from me, that we should congratulate the
Government that the commission is not a politically correct
one—it is not set out as a PC commission, with quotas of women,
ethnic minorities, elderly people and younger people. We should be
grateful that expertise—we hope—is the criterion for all
the commissioners.
I
have a broad question, which I regularly have when I see the Government
setting up another quango. The members of the quango are allegedly
independent. Some of them may go through the public appointments unit
system, although I understand that there is increasing use of a phrase
at the end of an announcement of a public appointment, about so-and-so
being appointed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
public appointments unit, not having gone through the unit. While I am
on the subject, I sometimes wonder why we insist that people of serious
seniority, who are well known and household names, go through the
public appointments unit when, most of the time, they are employing
people who have to go through a selection process that is infinitely
more rigorous than that. I will come off that particular high horse and
move back to the schedule, having managed to slip that past the
Chairman—I must not presume on his kindness.
The whole issue of the
independence of the commissioners, when they are appointed by the
Secretary of State, continues to concern me, because they are beholden
to the Secretary of State for their appointment and their dismissal.
One can feel for Mervyn King at the moment, as he waits to hear how
truly independent he is as Governor of the Bank of England. However, my
hon. Friends and colleagues have raised some specific issues. I will
not repeat them. I am glad to reread the schedule more closely and
notice that people are not being appointed just for one
term—they can be reappointed. I was interested that the fixed
terms are for five and eight years, rather than the more usual three
and six. I wondered whether that was a reflection of how long it is
going to take the commissioners to pick up the expertise that they
need, not just in their own field but all the other skills that we
talked about, including social skills. Or is that a reflection of the
practical length of some of the inquiries that the commissioners will
be
undertaking?
Another
issue of concern is, again, a much broader one. Under paragraph 5, the
commission receives its remuneration and allowances from the Secretary
of State and as the Secretary of State may determine. To draw a
parallel with the Charity Commission, one of the arguments for the
Charity Commission not being seen as independent was because it was
seen as receiving its pay and rations from the Home Office. Given how
much importance the Government are laying on the IPC being independent,
I wonder whether its pay and rations coming from the Department lays
its independence open to
challenge.
If the
Minister has not already responded to a similar question from another
hon. Member, I should be grateful if he told the Committee if the
council’s role within the commission is advisory or executive.
Will the council be the equivalent of an executive board? Will it
contain non-executive directors or will there be a mix? I genuinely
wish to know, too, what its function will be, because that is not
clear. Clarification of those matters would be helpful.
Before I discuss paragraph 19,
I declare my usual interest: my husband is a member of the Audit
Commission. I am fascinated that the planning commission should be
overseen by the National Audit Office, as it will be part of the
Department for Communities and Local Government, and should therefore
be audited by the Audit Commission. As planning is clearly part of
local government it may be an oversight that the National Audit Office
will audit the IPC and I should be grateful if the Minister explained
the thinking behind that
decision.
If the
Minister can answer our many and varied questions about schedule 1 we
can decide how to approach
it.
John
Healey:
After such exhaustive debate today, I had
anticipated making more rapid progress. However, I shall deal with the
main points that have been raised and if I do not respond adequately to
any of the questions I am sure that hon. Members will let me
know.
I can tell the
hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East that we expect the chair to
be full-time. “Tenure” means that the appointment to a
position is
intended to be for a term between five and eight years and that will
apply to all commissioners, including the chair. There is no explicit
limit on the number of terms that a commissioner may serve but any
reappointment would take into account the code of practice set by the
Committee on Standards in Public Life, which recommends an upper limit
of 10 years for the total service on any such
body. The right hon.
Member for Skipton and Ripon is a good member to have on the team. He
asked in a very elaborate and extended fashion precisely the question
that he asked me in the evidence session in about 20 seconds and I
shall give him the same answer: the commissioners are not delegates;
they are appointed as independent figures for their expertise, which
could come from fields such as community engagement, planning, law,
local government, engineering, economics, business, security,
environment, heritage and
health.
The hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst told me that he could not stay until
the end of the sitting, so I shall deal with his points
now.
Mr.
Curry:
Will the commissioners be appointed without regard
to other factors such as gender and race—that sort of
thing?
John
Healey:
The commissioners will be appointed in order to do
the job and as experts in their field. The intention is that part-time
commissioners might be brought in for a set period, particularly to
consider specific applications. They might do so on a periodic basis
during their total length of tenure. Essentially, that means that we
can allow the commission the flexibility that it might need, within the
framework of schedule 1, to ensure that the most suitable commissioners
with the appropriate level, nature and mix of expertise are available
and allocated to deal with a particular application. To be clear, there
will always be at least five commissioners on the council and they will
operate collectively and have equal weight.
With regard to delegation,
which was the other point that the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst was particularly exercised by, the purpose of the
Bill’s provisions is to ensure that the IPC’s important
functions relating to the examination of an application can only be
carried out by commissioners, whereas more everyday functions can be
carried out by the commission’s staff as well.
Finally, in response to the
question asked by the hon. Member for Beckenham on the meaning of
“council” in paragraph 6 of schedule 1, the purpose of
that provision clearly suggests that the council’s function in
that context is to consider applications and, particularly, any report
made by a single commissioner on an application. That will ensure that
a body of expertise will make the final decision, rather than an
individual commissioner. Of course, the council in that context will
also respond to consultations about the particular application or
matter before it.
In
response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, I
will consider the case and any proposals for the role of Parliament and
for how it discharges its proper and appropriate function in relation
to the Bill’s objectives. I will do so in a wider
context and in relation to the commitment that the Prime Minister made
in the governance of Britain Green Paper, in which he was clear that he
believes that good government is more accountable government and that a
strengthened role for Parliament in scrutinising the Executive leads to
better government and more confidence in its conduct. I will consider
the particular points and proposals that hon. Members might make
relating to the role of Parliament in the context of the important work
being done on pursuing the proposals set out in the governance of
Britain Green Paper.
Mrs.
Lait:
First, I thank the Minister for his courtesy in
responding to the queries voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst, who had an unavoidable appointment. May I just
ask who will audit the commission? I am happy to have a written note
about that if one could be passed to me at some point. I appreciate
that it is the National Audit Office, but my question is why it is the
NAO.
6.45
pm
John
Healey:
I do not know if this is what the hon. Lady is
fishing for, but am glad that she appreciates that it will be the NAO.
If she is fishing for me to confirm that on the record, I have just
done
so.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am most grateful to the Minister, and did read
that in the text of the Bill. I am trying to get at why the NAO should
audit the accounts of the commission, because my understanding is that
the NAO is there to audit the accounts of Government Departments and
that the Audit Commission is there to audit accounts from local
government. We are talking about the local government
Department.
John
Healey:
I understand now the source of the hon.
Lady’s confusion. If she will allow me, I will send her a list
of the bodies for which the NAO has auditing responsibility, and she
will see that it goes well beyond just central Government Departments.
To be clear, although DCLG is framing the legislation, the IPC is not a
local government body. I think that the information I can send her will
probably
help.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the Minister for that
clarification. It is not something over which I will call a vote, he
will be relieved to learn. I was merely curious as to the reason. I
think that all of us on this side of the Committee are grateful to the
Minister for his courtesy in answering all our questions to a greater
or lesser extent. We will probably take the matter away and may well
return to it on another
occasion.
Schedule
1 agreed to.
| 
