 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Planning |
Planning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 17 January 2008(Morning)[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]Planning BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HousePB 28 Mayor of
London
PB 29 Conservation
Architecture & Planning
Ltd.
<++++>
Clause 5National
policy
statements
9
am
Mrs.
Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): I beg to move amendment No.
4, in clause 5, page 2, line 36, leave out
‘may’ and insert
‘must’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following ame3ndments: No. 5, in clause 5,
page 2, line 40, leave out
‘development’ and insert ‘developments in the
fields of—
(i)
energy,
(ii)
transport,
(iii)
water,
(iv) waste water,
or
(v)
waste.’.
No.
6, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end
add—
‘(9) The Secretary of
State may issue a national policy statement under subsection (1) of
this section in respect of any nationally significant infrastructure
project as defined in sections 13(1) and
(2).’.
Mrs.
Lait:
I welcome you to your first sitting of line-by-line
consideration of the Bill, Sir John. I would like to put it on record
that I am glad that we are moving on to the national policy statements
because on Tuesday, Mr. Illsley had the very difficult job
of trying to keep us in order when so much discussion of the
infrastructure planning commission depended on the national policy
statements. Now that we have finished discussing the
IPC—
The
Chairman:
Order. Mr. Illsley has made that
point clear to me. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would carry on
with the subject now under
discussion.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am glad that Mr. Illsley alerted you to
the difficulties that we had, Sir John. I will now continue on the
issue of national policy
statements.
I
hope that this will not stop us from having a clause stand part debate,
but it is worth putting it on the record that in principle, we believe
that national policy statements are a good thing. However, there are
serious questions about many parts of the Government
proposals.
This first group of amendments
is not the most important group, but we think that it is important that
we do not see national policy statements emerging in areas other than
the five listed in clause 13(5). That is why the amendment would
replace the conditional “may” with “must”,
with regard to the Secretary of State issuing national policy
statements. Amendment No. 5 would bring the list from clause 13(5) into
clause 5 to ensure that national policy statements cover only those
five areas. Amendment No. 6 is, in effect, another way of ensuring that
amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are dealt with. In that way, we could say that
it is a supernumerary amendment. If the Government are not prepared to
accept amendments Nos. 4 and 5, they could instead accept amendment No.
6.
There
has been a big debate in the evidence that we heard and among lobby
groups about whether the policy statements should be focused tightly.
In the evidence sessions last week we had a brief debate about whether
there should be an environmental policy statement. We understand why
that suggestion was put forward, but I think that it is important that
every policy statement includes environmental considerations, so it is
unnecessary to have a separate one. However, there is a demand for one.
The Minister is looking either very interested or wishes to
intervene.
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
I am very
interested because the view expressed by the hon. Lady is entirely
different from that of her hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and
Southend, East. He supported the proposals of the Liberals last week.
That is what interested
me.
Mrs.
Lait:
Indeed, the Minister indicated his interest in this
matter last week, so we are going over worn ground. My hon. Friend has
accepted the arguments for environmental issues to be addressed within
each national policy
statement.
James
Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): If my hon.
Friend consults the record, I think that she will find that I did not
say that I would support, but that I would be minded to support the
proposals. I will continue to listen to the debate, but I have not
fully committed myself to any position.
Mrs.
Lait:
What this brief exchange demonstrates is that there
is the potential for mission creep in the national policy statements.
We are keen that national policy statements be limited to the five
issues in clause 13(5). I shall be interested to know whether any of my
hon. Friends have positive views on any other area that they think
should be brought in. However, for all the reasons that will become
apparent, we want to limit the number of areas in which the Secretary
of State must issue these national policy statements. One of our
principal reasons for keeping it tight is to ensure that there is no
mission creep and that the policy on national policy statements is kept
clear from the practicalities and the
details.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I am grateful to the hon.
Lady for setting out the reason for these amendments. Most Opposition
Members share her
concerns about the potential for mission creep, as she puts it. The
amendments have enabled us to discuss the matter. The Minister can tell
us whether the provisions covered in the Bill are the beginning of a
new tendency in policy and whether more and more aspects of planning
policy will come within them. On that basis, the amendments are
sensible, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that mission
creep will not take
place.
John
Healey:
May I welcome you, Sir John, to this sitting. We
are making speedier progress than we did on Tuesday.
[
Interruption.
] Perhaps it is rather early to be
tempting fate with such an
observation.
Under
amendment No. 4, the Secretary of State would be unable to issue a
statement setting out national policy in relation to any of the
specified fields, without designating that statement as a national
policy statement. I am not sure that that is exactly what the hon. Lady
had in mind, but that would be the effect of the amendment. She was a
little clearer about amendment No. 5. It seeks to restrict the areas in
which the Secretary of State can set out policy in a national policy
statement so as to match the types of nationally significant
infrastructure development which are to be covered by the new regime:
developments in the fields of energy, transport, water, waste water and
waste. Amendment No. 6 seeks to clarify at this stage of the Bill that
national policy statements may be issued in relation to the categories
of project set out in clause 13.
My problem with the amendments
is as follows. The principal purpose of national policy statements is
to bring together all the factors that will be relevant for the
infrastructure planning commission when deciding on a
particular application. However, there may be occasions when the
Secretary of State wishes to set out aspects of national policy in
relation to the fields in question, but not to designate them, for the
purposes of the Bill, to be the framework within which the IPC should
consider applications. That could, for example, be
in
the form of an overarching statement of national policy, which may set
out long-term strategic goals but which would not necessarily be
suitable as a decision-making reference point, or tool, in itself. Such
documents would form part of the policy background, which national
policy statements would then need to take into account. A national
policy statement would also need to explain how it had taken into
account the full range of factors that are relevant to the
commission’s decision-making
process.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I am grateful to
the Minister for explaining his thinking on the proposal. However, I
want to press him a little further. He gave us an idea of the type of
use to which a national policy statement might be put in those
circumstances. Given the implications for members of the public, which
we discussed when considering the consultation process in earlier
clauses, in what fields does the Minister envisage that it might be
necessary or desirable to have a policy statement that is not linked to
the work of the infrastructure planning
commission?
John
Healey:
It is less a question of the field and more of the
type and nature of a broad policy statement that may be required or
desired by Government. Ministers
may not wish to designate it as a national policy
statement because it is not specifically suitable or necessary for the
conduct of the work of the
IPC.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Will the Minister
explain what “designate” means, because it can cause a
lot of confusion? The clause says that a statement may be
“designated” as a national policy statement. Are there
circumstances in which a statement that has already been made might
subsequently acquire the status of a national policy statement by being
designated?
The
Minister said that the national policy statements will bring together a
wide range of issues that impact on a particular circumstance. Could
elements of a national policy statement be comprised of a statement on
matters that are relevant and be incorporated into a national policy
statement? In other words, is every national policy statement newly
minted, or can it be something that already exists or that incorporates
elements of existing
statements?
John
Healey:
The significance of designation is that it then
becomes, for the purposes of the legislation, the principal reference
point for the IPC in considering any applications related to that type
of nationally significant infrastructure project. To be capable of
being designated as such by the Secretary of State, it would have to
fulfil the criteria set out in the Bill—the standards that the
national policy statements must meet.
It is
possible that an existing policy statement could become designated and
therefore become a national policy statement, which we discussed in our
evidence sessions with reference to the aviation White Paper. Were that
to be something that the Government considered, the policy statement,
which the Secretary of State for Transport might wish to designate as a
national policy statement for the purposes of the IPC and
infrastructure applications, would have to meet, and to show that it
meets, the criteria set out in the Bill. That includes aspects of
consultation, of the sustainable development duty and the other things
that we have been considering for national policy
statements.
Mr.
Curry:
In terms of the procedure that would then follow
the designation of an existing document as a national policy statement,
the consultation procedures that accompany the national policy
statement will be applied to an old document. Any scrutiny that it had
already received would not be deemed to have been part of that
consultation.
Let me
explain further. The Government could well make a statement, and the
Select Committee may want to look at and comment on it. It might become
a national policy statement, and the Minister has said that there is a
procedure laid out for consultation, which flows from a national policy
statement. I want to ensure that when something is designated, all
those consultative procedures start to flow again and are not deemed to
have already been completed or partially
completed.
9.15
am
John
Healey:
It might help the Committee if deal with the
specific example of the aviation White Paper. As sensitive as it is and
as cautious as I am about dealing with it, I shall nevertheless try to
do so.
The aviation White Paper is due
and the Government are committed to reviewing it sometime between 2009
and 2011. At that point, should the Secretary of State for Transport
wish to review it, either as it stands or as the basis of a national
policy statement, she would have to consider policy questions about
whether it was sufficiently up to date, current and comprehensive. I
guess that those would be policy matters for her.
With regard to the Bill,
however, the Secretary of State would also have to consider whether the
criteria had been adequately discharged, including the extensive scope
for public consultation and the scrutiny of a potential national policy
statement by the House. If not, she would be open to challenge.
Clearly, I cannot say definitely in January 2008 what decisions she
might take at that
point.
It is
possible to anticipate that aspects of that White Paper might need to
be updated and that the Secretary of State, to meet the criteria that
we are setting out for consultation on national policy statements, the
likes of which were, of course, not in place when the aviation White
Paper was produced, might take the view that further consultation is
appropriate. It is probable—it is probably even more certain
than that—that the parliamentary scrutiny and examination to
which the White Paper is subject would need to be revisited and
refreshed to meet the process that we have set
out.
John
Healey:
May I just answer the right hon. Member for
Skipton and Ripon? I am trying to do so as fully as I can for the
assistance of the
Committee.
Because of
the importance that we are attaching to a new form of more exacting
parliamentary scrutiny, it is highly likely that any proposed national
policy statement on aviation, whether it is a development or the extant
White Paper, and irrespective of what public consultation process was
deemed appropriate, would be subjected to parliamentary
procedure.
I say
bluntly and clearly that I understand the fear that some have that the
aviation White Paper as it stands will somehow be capable of becoming a
national policy statement overnight. Under the Bill, it will not be
possible to say, “Hey presto, here is one I prepared
earlier,” not least because of the degree of parliamentary
scrutiny required. For a national policy statement to be legitimately
designated, the Secretary of State will have to go through at least
that process as part of considering moving the White Paper to, perhaps,
a national policy statement on aviation. I hope that that explanation
is helpful.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sorry if I interrupted the Minister in full
flow, but I did not want him to move on from this point until I had
asked my question.
It will be
very reassuring for everybody to have that clear explanation of how the
Minister sees aviation policy developing, and of course the waste
policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also
needs to come into consideration. However, in explaining his objection
to our amendments, he has put that explanation in terms of existing
policy documents. Will he give an example of how he sees those policy
documents working? I say that because we have the aviation policy, the
waste policy and potentially a nuclear policy, but how will they
operate in any new area, or within those five areas but with a new
document that will not be seen to be part of the national policy
statement process? Is his objection entirely retrospective?
John
Healey:
I think that the hon. Lady is asking me, as her
right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was asking me, for a
little more explanation of my concerns about amendment No. 5. Is that
correct?
John
Healey:
Let me try to give the hon. Lady and the
rest of the Committee another example; I think that, where it is
possible for me to do so, that would be helpful. Let us take the field
of transport. We have talked about aviation. Previously, we have talked
about the prospect of ports as major infrastructure and the possibility
of a national policy statement designed to deal with them. One could
also see the role of a national policy statement on major highways and
possibly on rail networks.
Given that one might anticipate
with just those examples, and there may be more, that there would be
four national policy statements, each one designed to provide the
principal framework within which the IPC would be expected to take
decisions on major applications for infrastructure and investment in
those fields, it is also possible to envisage—if the hon. Lady
were ever to be Secretary of State for
Transport—
John
Healey:
Perish the thought. However, let us deal with
hypotheticals, because the hon. Lady encourages me to do so. It is
quite plausible to imagine that to give broader coherence to those
policy statements in four areas, she may want to be able to issue some
type of overarching policy statement on transport. Nevertheless, that
overarching statement would not be specific or directly relevant for
the IPC’s consideration, because the principal framework, were
the IPC to consider a port’s application, would be the national
policy statement on ports. The same would be true for airport-related
developments, and so on.
The hon. Lady
may or may not remember that that type of overarching policy statement
is the sort of thing that Rod Eddington’s report on aviation
suggested would be valuable. The reason he said that was because it
would be likely to give a consistent, analytical and broad policy
framework within which the specific national policy statements for
those types of infrastructure would be developed. In that circumstance,
the Secretary of State might want to produce a policy statement related
or relevant to those sectors, but she might not designate
it as a national policy statement because the principal framework for
the purposes of planning applications and consideration of those
applications would be the national policy statements specifically
designed for ports.
That is why I am concerned
about amendment No. 5 and the way in which it would constrain what is
potentially a sensible and important scope for the Secretary of State
to be able to issue statements without them automatically having to be
designated or categorised as a national policy
statement.
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I am following
the Minister’s argument, but the debate is about retrospection,
which rightly is a fairly rare bird. He should read clause 11 in
conjunction with clause 5. Clause 11(3) states:
“The Secretary of State
may take account of consultation carried out, and publicity arranged,
before the commencement day for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of section
7.”
That means that if a
statement issued before the commencement day is to be designated as a
national policy statement, the Secretary of State is not bound to take
into account the consultation carried out in connection with that
statement. That is a great
worry.
John
Healey:
We can dwell on that at length when we discuss
clause 11. However, if the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will
see that I was trying to exemplify the points made by the right hon.
Member for Skipton and Ripon. I said that it is possible that a
Secretary of State for Transport might take the view that fresh
consultation is necessary to comply with the standards for a national
policy statement in the
Bill.
The
hon. Gentleman is right that there is provision for Secretaries of
State to consider consultation that has already taken place on the
content of a policy statement in coming to their judgments. That is
reasonable. It will also be up to the House and ultimately the courts
to consider that. The case that I used to exemplify the point was the
aviation White Paper. I was quite careful about how I described the
hypothetical situation of the aviation White Paper being considered as
a potential national policy
statement.
Robert
Neill:
On the Minister’s point about the
overarching national policy statement in a particular area which is not
for the purposes of the IPC, surely, however it is dressed up, it is
inevitable that such a document would be at least a material
consideration for the purposes of any application considered by the
IPC. Under those circumstances, what harm would be done by requiring it
to be designated as a national policy
statement?
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman may well be right. It would
depend on the circumstances of the individual case. However, I take him
back to the evidence that we heard last week and the observations that
he and the Conservative Front Benchers made about the value of a single
consent regime for the IPC. I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham
would prefer to see another body dealing with such things.
Nevertheless, having a principal framework and a single consent regime
would be enormously valuable to whoever considers such
applications.
The
hon. Gentleman puts the point as strongly as, “What is the harm
in it?” The implication would be that if the statement were
designated as a national policy statement, the IPC would be obliged to
take into account at least two documents, two frameworks, two policy
statements. That is not sensible, and I do not think that it is
consistent with some of the views that he and his hon. Friends have
expressed to
date.
Robert
Neill:
Of course, material considerations of all kinds can
be taken into account, so it is difficult to see how there is a
contradiction. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but
he will appreciate that we want to reinforce the single consent regime
by ensuring that everything that might be encompassed within the
national policy statement is clearly and specifically set out. There
may be a difference between how my hon. Friends and I would achieve it,
but I do not think that we are saying anything that undermines the
basic thrust of our argument. If he also looks at subsequent amendments
tabled by us, he will know that we are trying to toughen up the policy
aspect but remove the site-specific aspect of things. We are seeking to
do that throughout this part of the
clause.
9.30
am
John
Healey:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point a
bit more clearly the second time around. I explained that an
overarching policy statement of the nature that I have talked about
would be taken into account, incorporated and reflected in the national
policy statements. In other words, its relevance would be its
incorporation into the national policy statement for ports or for
aviation, which addresses his concern that relevant factors would be
covered without creating a duplication or triplication of national
policy statements, and thereby undermining the objective of having a
single principal source of reference and a single consent regime for
the IPC. I hope that that is
helpful.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sorry to push the Minister on what I
thought were fairly key but not terribly controversial amendments, but
I seek further
clarification.
Let
us take transport. The Minister referred to the possibility of a port
policy statement, a roads policy statement and a railways policy
statement, and to his desire that the IPC, or, in our case, the
Planning Inspectorate and the Minister, does not have to consider more
than one document. However, creating new ports can only be done if
there is access to that port. That, by definition, means roads and
rail. Is he saying that a national policy statement on ports would not
include roads and railway? If that were the case, the IPC would have to
look at three documents: the statement on railways, the statement on
roads and the statement on
ports.
John
Healey:
No, I am not saying that. We discussed that
already. I, and witnesses who came before us on Tuesday, pointed out
that in any ports national policy statement consideration would have to
be
given—
John
Healey:
Sorry, but I am trying to clarify for the hon.
Lady what I and the witnesses said. In the development of any ports
national policy statement, judgments would have to be made about the
extent to which the access infrastructure was an important
element of any sensible policy statement that the
IPC could be expected to use as a framework for decision making. I am
saying that again; I am not saying what the hon. Lady paraphrased as my
position.
I hope that
I have made clear my concerns about the impact of the amendments. I am
not sure that they would have the effect that the hon. Lady seeks. I
hope that she is using them as probing amendments and, if so, that she
feels that they have been useful. She was right to say earlier, from a
sedentary position, that I was tempting fate when I stood up about half
an hour ago to say what good progress the Committee was making. I hope
that she will withdraw the
amendment.
Mrs.
Lait:
I think I made it clear that I did not expect the
group of amendments to take quite the time that it has. However, it has
raised some interesting points which we will have to pursue
subsequently. The Minister was quite generous in indicating that, while
they may not be the most perfectly drafted amendments, he had some
understanding of what we were trying to achieve. We would be more than
willing for him and his experts to redraft them. That brings me briefly
back to the matter of mission creep, which we do not want to see. I
notice that some amendments have been tabled which relate to transport,
indicating that footpaths would be regarded as an infrastructure
project. Will he comment on that before we finally decide whether to
vote on the
amendment?
The
Chairman:
I think that goes a little wide of this group of
amendments. I ask the Minister to be
brief.
John
Healey:
We will have a good opportunity to look at that
when we come to it. The reference to footpaths relates to footpaths
that are an integral part of the development of major new roads. No
doubt when we come to a detailed debate on this, we will want to hear
in fuller detail what the hon. Lady has to say. My good friend and
colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Transport eagerly awaits
that debate. He will be keen to respond in appropriate
terms.
Mrs.
Lait:
I was under the misapprehension that perhaps the
Under-Secretary had something to tell us, and I was giving him the
opportunity to do so. We look forward to hearing what he has to say. We
will consider what the Minister has said. It was very interesting. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(aa) has been
approved by a resolution of the House of
Commons,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 280, in
clause 5, page 2, line 40, at
end insert ‘, and
(c)
has been subject to Parliamentary consideration in
accordance with section [Parliamentary consideration of national policy
statements], and
(d) has been
laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of
Parliament.’.
Amendment No. 184, in
clause 5, page 3, line 5, at
end insert—
‘(3A) A
statement may be designated as a national policy statement for the
purposes of this Act only if 4 months have elapsed since the proposals
were sent to Parliament and the Secretary of State has considered any
report produced by any committee of either House of Parliament on the
proposals.’.
New
clause 6—Parliamentary consideration of national policy
statements
‘(1) The Secretary
of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of a statement which the
Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national policy statement
for the purposes of this
Act.
(2) The Secretary of State
may not lay a national policy statement before Parliament under section
5(1)(d) until after the expiry of the period of Parliamentary
consideration of the draft of that statement, as defined by subsection
(3).
(3) The period for
Parliamentary consideration of a draft national policy statement means
the period of 60 days beginning on the day on which it was laid before
Parliament.
(4) In reckoning
the period of 60 days referred to in subsection (4), no account shall
be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued
or during which either House is adjourned for more than four
days.
(5) In preparing a
national policy statement under section 5 following the laying of a
draft of that statement under subsection (1) of this section, the
Secretary of State concerned shall have regard to any representations
made during the period for Parliamentary consideration and, in
particular, to any resolution or report of, or of any committee of,
either House of Parliament with regard to the
document.
(6) Together with a
national policy statement laid before Parliament under section 5(d),
the Secretary of State concerned shall lay a statement giving details
of—
(a) any
representations, resolution or report falling within subsection (5);
and
(b) the changes (if any)
which, in the light of any such representations, resolution or report,
the Secretary of State has made to the draft of the statement laid
before Parliament under subsection
(1).’.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I mentioned that retrospection is one of my
concerns about this whole area. We in Parliament are wary of
retrospective legislation for good reasons. In the wrong hands it can
cause quite a bit of mischief. According to the Minister the other day,
national policy statements will not come forward very soon; it will be
18 months or a couple of years before they come in. Why cannot existing
statements that might become national policy statements be subjected to
the same criteria and rigour as policy statements that will be created
after the Bill is enacted?
It is essential to ensure that
the public are fully engaged in the process. As the Minister well
knows, nothing impinges more on an ordinary member of the public than
planning law. They may not be engaged in it every day or discuss the
minutiae of policy, but they get engaged in it when it affects them
because it can damage their property rights, their quiet enjoyment of
their property and so on. As mentioned previously, of the 13 examples
of large projects mentioned in the Bill, 10 are potentially or
obviously bad neighbours. We have to be careful because we must be seen
to be totally open. There must be a proper opportunity for the public
to get engaged at all stages.
Amendment No.
69 would lay an obligation on the Government to place a national policy
statement before Parliament. I am delighted that the Minister has
tabled new clause 6, which effectively does
that.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I hope that it receives a fair wind, because
it is absolutely what is necessary and would greatly improve the Bill.
If we are to have this retrospection, at the very least we must have
public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny too. Will the Minister
tell the Committee in due course how many of such statements that are
already in existence does he foresee coming in as national policy
statements, if that is not an impossible question to answer? If it is,
clearly, I will not receive an answer, but if it is not, I would be
greatly obliged to receive one.
I mentioned that we must be
careful about retrospection. I am very much taken by the wording of new
clause 6, because it fleshes out far more of the intention that I had
in mind when I tabled my short amendment.
My other concern is that clause
5(5) essentially gives the Secretary of State the power to decide what
level of detail is to be provided in the national policy statement.
That is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Other commentators
who are far more versed in planning law than myself have explained that
there are great concerns about that. The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, for example,
said:
“The
government’s failure to include a national spatial framework for
the proposed infrastructure plans is extremely disappointing. A
framework would supply a link into the regional spatial strategies and
provide the bedrock for national policy statements. Without this map,
government policy could ignore regional inequalities, leaving many
regions neglected. In planning terms, this policy is like a map without
reference points.”
That
is quite important.
A
similar point was made by Sir Peter Hall, the eminent town planning
academic, when he
said:
“Doubts
deepen when it emerges that they would refer to individual pieces of
infrastructure: airports, railways or ports, rather than transport as a
whole. So the Department for Transport could produce a statement on
airports without considering the case for a new high-speed rail line.
To an extent this has already happened. The white paper stresses more
than once that pre-existing statements, notably the 2003 airports white
paper, should be automatically incorporated into the new national
statements, with only cursory revision to deal with developments such
as the rise in the profile of the climate change debate and the case
for limiting air traffic
growth”.
There
are genuine concerns. It is not a case of opposition politics for the
sake of it. I know from the way in which the Minister is
dealing with the issue that he is trying his best to explain the
position, and he has been very generous in taking interventions.
Nevertheless, this measure is crucial.
Quite honestly, I have always
had a difficulty with retrospective legislation. Some of the existing
policy that may formulate national policy statements may well be
worthy, proper and acceptable, but it must be seen to be so. In that
regard, we must have a public consultation properly undertaken. It
should not be the case that that consultation “may” be
taken into account by the Minister, as set out in clause 11, but rather
it should be the case that it “shall” be taken into
account. That change, coupled with parliamentary scrutiny, which, after
all is said and done, will not delay the passage of this Bill, would
deal with the problem.
I would fully adopt what is set
out in new clause 6 and regret that I have not signed up to it. The
time frame set out in that new clause is reasonable; it would not add
any delay to the passage of this Bill, but strengthen and democratise
the process, and that, surely, is a good
thing.
9.45
am
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): It is fairly
clear from the comments that I have made so far that I have a great
deal of sympathy with the aims and objectives of this Bill and the
intention of the Government to try to ensure that we have more
appropriate, better, more efficient and more effective ways of
considering major planning issues on major infrastructure projects,
while recognising the appropriateness of ensuring that the general
public, appropriate interest groups and, of course, Members of
Parliament have the right to be involved in that process.
We are
looking at what I think everyone has accepted is a crucial part of that
process, namely, the formulation of national policy statements. Indeed,
it has been accepted that national policy statements, particularly when
they relate to certain localities, almost effectively determine the
outcome of the planning process. They are, therefore, extremely
important.
As
I said, I certainly do not question in any way the general good aims of
this legislation or, indeed, the good intentions of current Ministers
when they say that they are committed to a full and proper process of
consultation on the national policy statements, both inside and outside
Parliament. In tabling the amendments, my only concern is that even
though Ministers might have good intentions now—properly
expressed and taken at face value from my hon. Friend—if those
are not put into some sort of formula embodied in legislation or in the
rules of the House, unfortunately, in 10 years’ time, other
Ministers might ride roughshod over those good intentions, if they are
not required by the laws that we pass or the rules of Parliament to act
in a certain
way.
John
Healey:
Does my hon. Friend really believe that we are
likely to have a change of Government in so short a time as 10
years?
While
commitments given by Ministers in Committee and on the Floor of the
House are important in giving reassurance on the intention as to how
national policy statements will be considered in the future, it is
important to go a little further if we can tempt Ministers down that
road. I am sure that the ministerial statements in response to that
point have already been written and we will have an explanation as to
why it is perhaps not a good idea to be so specific about how those
matters will be considered. However, I ask the Minister to recognise
that many of the concerns surrounding the legislation come not only
from organisations that do not want it at all, but from other
organisations, such as the Royal Town Planning Institute, that want the
legislation to have a fair wind and also want to be certain that the
assurances given about the role of consultation in the process of
setting up the national policy statements will be delivered in
practice. I hope that my hon. Friend will
look at amendment No. 280 and new clause 6, which
stand in my name, and see that even if they are not precisely to his
liking, he could move a little further in that direction than the Bill
currently does.
I
also recognise that there is an issue in relation to what we put in
legislation and what is in parliamentary procedure, and that clearly
needs to be resolved. I know that my hon. Friend has said that he is
meeting the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees to look at the
issue of parliamentary procedure. In the new clause and the amendment,
I have not tried to stray down the road of saying to Parliament,
“We will enshrine in legislation how you are going to conduct
internally your part in the consideration of national policy
statements.” In amendment No. 280, I am simply trying to ensure
that Parliament has time to give proper consideration to national
policy statements when they are drafted and to approve them when they
are eventually formulated.
New clause 6
lays out in more detail the timetable in which Parliament might be
allowed to do that. I am not prescribing how Parliament should do it.
It is entirely up to Parliament to determine the nature of its
scrutiny, whether it is done in Select Committee, whether a special
Committee is set up, whether it is done on the Floor of the House, or
in a Select Committee and then referred to the Floor of the House. All
those are properly matters for parliamentary rules and procedures to
determine.
If
Parliament is going to have the opportunity to decide how it is going
to scrutinise draft policy statements, it must have the proper time to
do so. That is what new clause 6 tries to set out: a proper window of
opportunity during which Parliament can determine precisely how it will
consider the draft national policy statements before it. I hope that
Ministers will at least consider that.
I return to
the point that many individuals and organisations who feel that the
legislation is generally moving in the right direction want some
reassurance about Ministers’ commitments to democratic
consideration, which they want to be more firmed up, with certain
considerations written into the legislation. I hope that Ministers
recognise those concerns and genuinely consider how they can go some
way to meeting
them.
Mrs.
Lait:
All the amendments in this group are trying to help
the Government get themselves out of the hole into which they dug
themselves in the ministerial statement of 27 November, which
stated:
“To
provide the stronger role for Parliament, we encourage the House to
establish a new Select Committee with the main purpose of holding
inquiries into draft national policy statements in parallel with public
consultation. We suggest that this Committee should be comprised of
members from existing Select Committees on Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform, on Transport and on Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2007; Vol.
468, c.
11WS.]
That
rather put the cat among several pigeons because, in essence, it was
telling the House what it was going to do, and I cannot imagine a
quicker way to get the House of Commons on its high horse than for the
Government to tell it what to do. We are trying to help them out of
this hole with all the amendments, including that which the hon. Member
for Meirionnydd Nant
Conwy so ably moved, and those to which the hon. Member for Sheffield,
Attercliffe spoke. We would all agree on exactly the same
aim.
We are keenly
concerned that Parliament gives adequate and full consideration to the
national policy statements. There are many suggestions about how that
can be done, but it is not for the Government to tell the House how to
do it, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out. I
understand that the Minister is planning to meet the Chairmen of the
relevant Select Committees to try to sort out the mess that they got
themselves into, but that no date has been fixed. I hope that at some
point during the Committee, the Minister will report back to us so that
everybody who has these concerns, such as the Royal Town Planning
Institute and other outside organisations, as well as ourselves, have a
good idea of the parliamentary way forward for
consultation.
Many
concerns have been expressed. For instance, it is entirely possible
that a national policy statement on nuclear power might not take as
long to go through the House, because the issue has been fully debated
over so many years, as one on a totally new area of technological
development in fossil fuels such as carbon capture. There is no need to
set down a formulaic procedure whereby every Select Committee must have
an inquiry; that is entirely up to each Select Committee to decide.
However, we need to know that Parliament will have a vote on the matter
at some point. We need to know that what Parliament has recommended is
not just accepted by Ministers but taken seriously into consideration.
If Ministers do not agree with Parliament’s recommendations,
they must give a clear explanation to Parliament as to why. We need to
know that when Parliament decides on a national policy statement, there
will be a substantive vote, not one that is taken on the Adjournment.
We all know that it is very rare to have a vote on the Adjournment, and
technically it does not give the answer that Parliament would wish to
have.
All of us are
trying hard to help the Government come to a satisfactory conclusion
with Parliament on a structure to, and formula for, genuine
parliamentary consultation and consideration. We all want that, but
currently the proposal is to run it in parallel with outside
consultation. I can see considerable difficulties with that proposal,
too, but it is not within the scope of the amendments before us. We
want parliamentary consideration to be fully taken into account, and
any disagreement between Ministers and Parliament should be resolved by
a vote in Parliament. That is crucial. The national policy statements
must have the necessary validity to be accepted by the British public.
As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, planning issues are
deep within the British psyche, because everyone understands them, and
if we do not get the provision right, the system will be brought into
disrepute and there will be an even bigger disconnect between
Government, Parliament and the people.
That is why
it is so important that the Government take on board the amendments.
We, like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, will not be fussed
if they wish to redraft them, but if the British public are to accept
the policy statements, the Bill should, by the time it leaves the
House, include an agreed formula for proper and thorough consultation
between Government and Parliament.
Dan
Rogerson:
Hon. Members have made a persuasive case for
including in the Bill a cover for the Government’s public
commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. One
of the most important aspirations of the Bill, which is shared by the
majority of people from whom we have taken written and oral evidence,
is the need to ensure that when individual applications are considered,
some matters of national importance can be dealt with and taken out of
the equation, because, currently, public inquiries cause the process to
drag on far too long. The Liberal Democrats share that sensible
aspiration. However, if the process is to be valid, and if people are
to be confident that the decisions on framing national policy
statements stand up, as a national policy, the statements must be
scrutinised nationally.
The Bill must include the
provision that Parliament will consider national policy statements in
detail, evaluate them and have the opportunity to suggest corrections
when Members feel that there are problems. That provision would be one
of the system’s strengths. Members from all parts of the House
will have examples from their constituencies of problems that have
occurred and applications that have been dealt with in certain ways, of
which some will have been unsuccessful, and some will have been
successful, and that collective experience and wisdom could contribute
a great deal to the statements.
There will of course be
opportunities for formal consultation without parliamentary structure,
but if we are to invest the statements with the authority that the
Government seek, it is vital that Parliament has the opportunity to
consider them. The Government have said publicly that the process will
take place, but when we are framing legislation, that is not good
enough. We need something in the Bill that says that it will take place
and that there will be adequate time for it. I, like the hon. Member
for Beckenham, hope that by the time the Bill emerges from
consideration in this House and another place, it sets out how the
process will take place. I commend the hon. Members for Meirionnydd
Nant Conwy and for Sheffield, Attercliffe on exploring methods of doing
that. I hope that we will have an opportunity to express our firm
support for such a proposal as a
Committee.
James
Duddridge:
I, too, want to thank hon. Members for putting
forward the amendments and the new clause. The degree of parliamentary
scrutiny of national policy statements in the Bill is inadequate. I was
excited when I heard that new clause 6 was a Government proposal but
then disappointed, with all due respect to the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe, to find out that it is a Back-Bench proposal. I
am sure that it will be looked on favourably by the Minister. I hope
that he will take away a number of
ideas.
10
am
It is essential
that we have full public and parliamentary scrutiny. By parliamentary
scrutiny, I mean that there should be a substantive debate on the Floor
of the House, followed by a vote. It is wholly inadequate to push the
proposal into the realm of Select Committees. Those are already
overburdened and provide too strong a distraction from the main
Chamber, which should be the thrust of this place. I
have served on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs and on the Select Committee on International
Development.
As
a member of the International Development Committee, I served on the
Quadripartite Committee, which provides a similar level of
parliamentary scrutiny to that which is proposed by the Minister as an
alternative to the amendments. That Committee, while doing its best, is
currently looking at whether the arrangement is working. The Minister
is looking to replicate an arrangement that is not working at the
moment. There is the additional problem of pulling together different
Select Committees. The Quadripartite Committee has semi-permanent
representation from the four bodies, but any member of those Committees
can turn up and has voting
rights.
Mrs.
Lait:
Will my hon. Friend outline for the Committee the
problems with the Quadripartite
Committee?
James
Duddridge:
It does not have the same strong dynamic that a
Select Committee has because the group does not work together; it does
not have the same level of staffing support; because it does not meet
as frequently, it does not have the right momentum; and it does not
have a broad enough set of focuses. In addition, in Committees that are
brought together from the memberships of other Select Committees, there
are strong Chairmen with different views in terms of substance and
style. The Minister’s proposal for parliamentary scrutiny is
riddled with
problems.
On
Second Reading, one Chairman of the proposed Committee mentioned that
the four Chairmen had got together and expressed surprise that they
were hearing about the proposal for the first time. I am very
disappointed, given the strong comments made on Second Reading, that
the meeting between the Minister and those Chairmen has not gone ahead.
If it had, perhaps the Minister would be proposing slightly different
measures and would be slightly more receptive to the proposals in
amendment No. 69 to provide the proper parliamentary scrutiny that is
needed from the full
House.
Unless that
scrutiny takes place, how will hon. Members contribute to the substance
of the debate if they are not on one of those four Committees? It is
wholly inappropriate to go forward with the Minister’s proposal
and I urge him to look at the matter again. Very strong points were
made by a number of hon. Members on Second Reading and very strong
views are held by all members of this Committee on this
matter.
Mr.
Curry:
I begin with a note of caution. A certain amount of
tail chasing is going on because it is not clear at what stage a
document becomes a national policy statement. We all agree that there
should be a process of consultation, but does a document come under
scrutiny and then become a national policy statement, or is it
postulated as a national policy statement and subjected to scrutiny
before being confirmed? Much of this debate is slightly circular in
that sense.
I am very
cautious about the recourse to Select Committees. I chaired the
Agriculture Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee for a number of years. For my sins, I serve on the
Public Accounts Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, so
a great deal of expiation is being delivered at the moment.
Select Committees are under a
huge strain, and, as far as we know, the Government still intend to set
up regional Select Committees. The Minister is also responsible for the
regions, so he should be able to tell us what has happened to the
proposal, which was made before the summer recess. It will soon be a
year since that wonderful constitutional innovation was announced, and
it seems to have died in its sleep; it has had a sort of cot death. Is
it still alive?
The
demands on Members’ time are huge. There is the Chamber, which
we all allege is the heart of Parliament, although I have my doubts
about that—occasionally it is, but it is not constantly so.
There are also Select Committees, and most colleagues want to serve on
Public Bill Committees from time to time to keep their hand in because
they are part of the day-to-day debate. We invented Westminster Hall,
which is another diversion for
Members.
When I was
Chairman of a Select Committee there were times when five colleagues
would disappear because they were on a Standing Committee or they had
to be in Westminster Hall. The idea that we will be able to put
together a super, Joint Committee is wishful thinking. If it does
happen, it will denude the existing Select Committees, which will have
to scratch around like mad for a quorum.
I want to make a different
suggestion: the issue should be put to a Joint Committee of both
Houses, for which there are precedents. The Minister keeps saying that
we must have expertise because that is what counts. There is an awful
lot of expertise just up the corridor. A Joint Committee of the two
Houses would make fewer demands on Members of the House of Commons and
be able to draw on the expertise of people in the other place. This is
not an aspirational
statement—
Mr.
Curry:
It is neither. I fear that any aspirations I may
have will be short-lived after next week’s debate.
I am looking
for a practical way in which proper, informed scrutiny can take place
without either draining other scrutiny activities of the House or being
just a token. We have a Joint Committee on Human Rights, which works
well. A Joint Committee would be able to report to both Houses; it
would not replace final scrutiny in both Chambers but it would get us
over the problem of getting together the expertise in the time
available. I make the suggestion for the Minister’s
consideration and, indeed, for the consideration of the House, as it is
a decision for the House at the end of the day, that that might be an
intelligent way of taking forward what are bound to be broad issues of
policy, but which contain a lot of detail.
Technical expertise will have
to be brought to bear on what I suspect will be very complex documents.
The national policy statements will not be written on a couple of sides
of foolscap; there will be volumes, with annexes attached, and the work
involved in producing
them will be hugely demanding. We will have to look for someone to do a
bit of lateral thinking if there is to be effective scrutiny of
them.
John
Healey:
I shall deal with the points raised and try to be
as clear and firm as I can about our commitments, how important
parliamentary scrutiny is and how the Government will ensure that they
play their part in that process. Such commitments are rather unusual
for Ministers to make at this point in a piece of
legislation.
It is
hard to anticipate precisely the number of national policy statements,
but the annexe to the document published on November 27 identifies
those that are likely to be made. The short answer to the question of
the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about how many national
policy statements we expect is up to or around a
dozen.
The hon.
Gentleman was right to say that public consultation and parliamentary
scrutiny are essential, and I entirely subscribe to that general
approach. The Bill’s provisions and the Government’s
commitments underline that. Both those things are essential, and they
will be central to the development and, ultimately, the designation of
national policy statements.
I am glad
that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said that the
legislation is moving us in the right direction. I understand his
desire for a firm Government commitment to the role of Parliament, and
we will respond to that as far as possible as we consider the Bill.
However, I should clarify one point, not to do with scrutiny, but with
what underpins some of his arguments in favour of new clause 6. A
national policy statement containing location-specific elements would
not pre-empt an IPC decision. Like any other national policy statement,
it would provide the principal framework within which the IPC would
consider any applications, but there are clearly some areas, sectors
or, to use the terms in the Bill, fields in which it will be sensible
to identify suitable locations for certain major infrastructure
developments. It will likewise be sensible to rule out other
locations.
I suspect
that we will return to the question of whether including
location-specific elements in national policy statements is reasonable
and right, but they will be an essential part of some national policy
statements. When they are included, an individual application will
nevertheless need to be considered in detail, which is what the IPC is
for. It will need to examine applications in detail and, clearly, it
will have the power to reject applications as well as to approve them.
Like any other decision-taking body, it should be expected to do the
former in certain circumstances.
Robert
Neill:
I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for that
helpful explanation. However, does it follow that when a national
policy statement refers to locations—I see the sense of what he
said—there should be alternative locations? Has he envisaged a
situation in which a national policy statement would say, “We
need two facilities but we have identified only two sites.”?
Such a situation would pre-empt the IPC. I can see his point on
identifying or ruling out certain areas. In certain situations, it
would be down to the IPC to decide on specific locations. I see where
he is going, but will he clarify the
situation?
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman delves into a level of
specificity that is impossible to respond to in general terms. I
suspect that the situation will be different in different policy fields
and national policy
statements.
The hon.
Member for Beckenham said that she was trying to be helpful. Her
amendments would not be helpful, but her comments and explanation were.
She made a clear argument for not tying Parliament’s hands in
primary legislation and for not telling the House, through legislation,
what it should do or how it should go about its
business.
I was
interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Rochford and
Southend, East. He gave a sweeping critique on the weaknesses of the
Select Committee system. However, on the importance of parliamentary
scrutiny of national policy statements, his proposals and solutions to
the problems were not clear. Like the right hon. Member for Skipton and
Ripon, he described himself as cautious of Select Committees. In the
end, he was right: at the end of the day, the House must decide how it
goes about its business of scrutinising appropriately each national
policy statement in the production process. That is the core of my
argument. The situation will be different, and it will probably be
judged appropriately different—the hon. Lady touched on
that—for different national policy
statements.
10.15
am
If
the hon. Gentleman is worried about the work load of Select Committees,
I suspect that he will not look kindly on the content of amendments
that attempt to specify that any Select Committee charged with
considering national policy statements—under any circumstances,
for any national policy statements—would, for example, be
obliged to produce a report. It well may do so, but, in certain
circumstances, it may decide that that is not appropriate. To tie our
hands in primary legislation in the way that is proposed is not
sensible.
The
amendments and new clause contain at least three different ways of
building into the Bill the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of
national policy statements. There are three proposals, and, including
the Ministers, I count 21 members of this Committee. There are at least
30 times more Members in the House, and I suspect that each and every
one could come up with a slightly different variant on how appropriate
scrutiny procedures might be conducted.
[
Interruption.
] Perhaps the bloc of Plaid Cymru
MPs would be of a single mind, but that does not actually very much
change the numbers or my general
point.
My
general point is that the proposal that this Committee and this Bill
should tie the hands of Parliament, or specify in such detail how it
should go about its business, confirms the wisdom of the approach that
the Government are taking: first, in principle to be clear, firm and
consistent about the essential importance of parliamentary scrutiny as
a necessary part of the development, and then the designation, of
national policy statements; and, secondly, as a starting point, to
propose that we form a special Select Committee to lead that work in
Parliament.
To be
clear, the Government will consider any reports or observations that
such a Committee or such scrutiny provides together with the responses
of the
consultation, and we will revise draft national policy statements
accordingly. In addition, if that Committee were to recommend for a
particular national policy statement that time should be made available
to debate it in the House, we will make that time available, and we
will do that as part of the process before the designation of any
national policy
statement.
I
have explained to the Committee that the Secretary of State, the Leader
of the House and I will try to meet the Chairmen of the four Select
Committees that may form a suitable quadrilateral Select Committee to
consider national policy statements. The Leader of the House has
written to the Chairmen, and, at present, the ball is in their court. I
hope that we can move shortly to set up such a meeting because it will
be an important first step in encouraging the House to consider
seriously how it wants to set up its own arrangements to do the
scrutiny job that is essential to the Bill, and which I am sure the
House would want to
conduct.
James
Duddridge:
May I encourage the Minister also to set up a
meeting with representatives of the Quadripartite Committee and,
perhaps, the secretariat to understand fully the problems with the type
of structure that he envisages, which we are experiencing
already?
John
Healey:
Clearly, we will take into account, as I am sure
the four Chairmen of the relevant Select Committees will take into
account, the experience of the operation of the existing quadrilateral
Select Committee. My view is that the focus and the nature of the
Select Committee that we are proposing to consider national policy
statements would be different. Its dynamic and focus would be different
and not potentially susceptible to the sort of flaws, if they exist,
that the hon. Gentleman
mentioned.
Mr.
Betts:
I am sure that we shall be clear about what
will happen after the meeting with the Chairs of the Select Committees.
Amendment No. 280 and new clause 6 prescribe how Parliament should
undertake scrutiny. They lay down, first, the right for parliamentary
scrutiny; secondly, a period for it to be allowed to happen; and,
thirdly, that there should be a vote on each national policy statement,
however the House chooses to conduct it. I do not understand why those
principles cannot be enshrined in the Bill. I have not heard the
Minister address those particular issues, which are simple yet
fundamental.
John
Healey:
We had a little exchange earlier. Let us suppose
that there was a change of Government, a change of Minister and that,
in such circumstances, Parliament wanted to strengthen or change the
way in which it scrutinised the national policy statements. If we were
to accept new clause 6, Parliament might want more than 60 days to have
the report laid before
it.
Specifying matters
in such detail as proposed by the new clause and amendments is not
sensible. It may not suit the purposes of the system or Parliament as
it develops. I am yet to be convinced that it is right to specify in
primary legislation how Parliament should go about the business of
scrutinising the Executive. I have said consistently that we are clear
that the
importance of national policy statements demands that Parliament holds
the Executive closely to account and plays an active part that we
recognise and will build into the production of national policy
statements before they are finalised and
designated.
James
Duddridge:
I asked the Minister to meet the
Quadripartite Committee or its representatives. There was resistance to
that. I have some genuine worries. For him to show the Committee that
he is taking the matter seriously, will he arrange for his staff to
meet the staff of the Quadripartite Committee? I want them to discuss
the issues that it faces and the debates that it is having on forming a
Committee in a different way to overcome the problems. I want them to
report back to him, so that he does not make some of the same mistakes
that the current Quadripartite Committee is dealing
with.
John
Healey:
A standing quadrilateral Committee that considers
the arms trade generally—the remit of the current
Committee—is different from one that may be charged with looking
at specific national policy statements as and when they are produced in
draft and offered by the Government. If, indeed, the problems
identified by the hon. Gentleman exist with the current quadrilateral
Committee, they are unlikely to be characteristics that we will see in
future. However, when I said that we will take into account the
experience of the current quadrilateral Committee, that was a precise
signal to him that I will ensure that officials contact
that Committee and take advantage of its experience and observations
about how it conducts its work to see whether there are any lessons
that we could look at for future
arrangements.
I am not
convinced that the Bill is the right place for such detailed processes
nor that it is right for it to specify how Parliament should conduct
its procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
Attercliffe, the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant
Conwy will not press the new clause or the amendments to a
Division.
Mr.
Llwyd:
With respect to the Minister, who said that he was
unpersuaded, I must say that I am unpersuaded, too. I prefer new clause
6 to my amendment. He said that there were three variants of the way in
which we can proceed with that Committee. Yes, there are and they have
been tabled by three hon. Members who represent three different
parties. That is a worry. He said that we can come up with any number
of variations, and that four lawyers in a room would have four
different opinions, but that statement underpins the fact that we are
all concerned about scrutiny, public access and public accountability
through Members of Parliament. I was rather hoping that he would say at
least that he would consider new clause 6. It is with great regret that
I must say that I wish to press amendment No. 69 to a
Division.
It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 18 January 2008 |
