 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(Afternoon)[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]Planning Bill
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 69, in clause 5,
page 2, line 38, after
‘State,’,
insert—
‘(aa) has been
approved by a resolution of the House of
Commons,’.—[Mr.
Llwyd
.]
1
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with we are taking
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).’.
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
On a point of
order, Mr. Illsley. The hon. Member for Beckenham asked me
late on Tuesday’s sitting about the National Audit Office and
the bodies that it audits, and I promised to get back to her with a
list. That list demonstrates that it is standard practice for the NAO
to audit national bodies such as the infrastructure planning commission
and those that essentially are non-departmental public bodies. I have
responded to the hon. Lady and, for the benefit of Committee members,
made available a list of the bodies that the NAO currently has
responsibility for
auditing.
The
Chairman:
That is not a point of order, but I am sure that
the Committee is grateful for the information provided by the Minister
in that
documentation.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I was
reflecting over lunch—a very light lunch—on the
Minister’s comments in response to my amendments and new clause.
I understand that he will never be persuaded to put on the face of the
Bill the level of detail that new clause 6 goes into, but am equally
aware of the discussions that he will have with the Select Committee
Chairs and wonder whether he would give an assurance that he will
report back to us on those discussions in Committee, or on Report if
the timing so determines, and give further consideration to the
possibility of putting something very general in principle on the face
of the Bill: simply a commitment to the House having a vote and being
allowed scrutiny. In other words, amendment No. 280 without new clause
6. I am not asking for an assurance that he will do that at this stage,
but simply that he will report back in the light of those discussions
and give further consideration to that point of
principle.
John
Healey:
I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr.
Illsley. I will indeed report back to the Committee or the House on the
progress of discussions and proposals for scrutiny arrangements for the
important provisions on national policy statements in the Bill. I
recognise the importance of the parliamentary scrutiny and how strongly
that is felt by members of the Committee and will reflect on all the
points that have been raised in what has been an extended and useful
debate, including those that were put so clearly and strongly by my
hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
Attercliffe.
Mrs.
Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): I, too, welcome you back to
the Chair, Mr. Illsley. You will be pleased to know that it
will be much easier to keep us in order than it was.
May I thank the Minister for
those assurances and also the efforts that the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe made? I would, however, like to have a vote on
the principle of scrutiny by Parliament, which should not take long in
this Committee. I accept the assurances that the Minister gave, but
think that it is so important, both inside and outside the House, that
proper arrangements are made for parliamentary scrutiny and that they
are accepted and understood that I would like to get our views on the
record. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe is
minded not to press amendment No. 280 to a vote, I would like to do so
myself.
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I, too, welcome
you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. Just before we adjourned, the
Minister was explaining why my amendment, new clause 6 and the other
amendments in the group were not necessary. They all related to public
participation, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. In these
current days when everything before Parliament is guillotined and
timetabled and when perhaps 100 amendments will go untouched and
undiscussed when Bills are on Report, I am really not happy that we
will not put something on the face of the Bill. I do not want to be
stubborn, but think that it is one of the most important issues in the
Bill. I would like to press the amendment to a
vote.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
11.
Division
No.
5
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly
negatived.
The
Chairman:
Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe
wish to press amendment No. 280 to a
Division?
Mr.
Betts:
In the light of the assurances given by the
Minister on this issue, I will not press the amendment at this
stage.
Amendment
proposed: 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.’.—[
Mrs
Lait.
]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
11.
Division
No.
6
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
‘(2A) Before
designating a statement as a national policy statement for the purposes
of this Act the Secretary of State must publish a process and timetable
for the production of that national policy
statement.’.
The
amendment would put a clear process and timetable for the designation
of national policy statements in the Bill. It refers particularly to
statements that are likely to be passported through. It is important
that we have a discussion about and hear the Minister’s views on
the timing of this process. The more that we receive information from a
wide variety of sources, the more conscious I am that seeking final
approval for a national policy statement could be a lengthy process. I
tabled the amendment in the hope that the Minister will give us some
assurances and that we can tease out our concerns about the length of
time that it will take for national policy statements to go through the
system. It is probably very difficult to do that for any new policy
statements, but let us concentrate for a while on the air transport
statement and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
waste statement. This morning the Minister set out how he expected the
current aviation policy statement to become a national policy statement
because of the review that is already promised between 2009 and, I
think he said
2014—
Currently,
work is going on on Heathrow’s third runway, which is pretty
controversial itself. Far be it from me to give my learned friends any
help, but I would have thought that, if the Government hope to make the
air transport policy into the national policy statement on air
transport, progress on runway 3 will be exceedingly slow, because
everyone will be waiting for the finalised national policy statement.
And that is only one aspect of
aviation.
Would
the Minister also tell us how he expects DEFRA to process its waste
statement, or even whether that, which is regarded as a national
statement, will become a national policy statement? What impact will
that have, when everyone is currently concentrating hard on replacing
landfill and all its associated difficulties with a variety of
interesting new technologies, some of which are completely
unpronounceable but may well be infinitely more
effective?
Where
existing policy statements arise, we would be most grateful if the
Minister could give us some idea of the time scale that he envisages
for those becoming national policy statements. Given that he was saying
earlier today that one Select Committee will be looking at those, how
does he expect that Committee to deal with more than one policy
statement at the same time without giving us all parliamentary
constipation? If we could have some idea of the practicalities of that,
I would be most grateful. This is a probing amendment to try and get
that
information.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I shall be brief, given
that we have a great deal to accomplish over the next few
sittings.
The key question is the
Government’s justification of a clear distinction between the
way in which existing policy has been framed, and especially consulted
on, and that which will apply to a national policy statement. It is
fair to say that people around the country, interest groups, campaign
groups and industry bodies would perhaps approach Government policy set
as an intention in a White Paper—but perhaps tested in some
specifics at planning inquiries under the current state of
affairs—slightly differently once the Bill is in effect and
there is a national policy statement. Once the policy is set, any other
means of people commenting on it with regard to individual applications
will be circumvented, and, obviously, that policy will inform the
IPC’s
decision.
It is
therefore important that we hear from the Government how something that
moves from existing policy to becoming an NPS will meet a higher level
of scrutiny, and, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said in introducing
her amendment, just what the timetable and processes for that would
be.
1.15
pm
John
Healey:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham for
making it clear that she is treating this as a probing amendment. The
hon. Lady said that her principal concern was with the
“passporting”, as she put it—not a term I would
use—of existing policy statements into a designated category as
national policy statements. The hon. Lady seems to be concerned that
that process might take too long, and that underpins her remarks on the
amendment.
As the
hon. Lady was kind enough to acknowledge, I went into detail on the
stages in the process and their likely timing in view of the aviation
White Paper having the potential to become a national policy statement.
I hope that that was helpful as a background to the
amendment.
In
practice, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out
a timetable for new policy statements, as well as for pre-existing
ones, and as the hon. Lady acknowledged, that would be quite difficult.
It is not clear how far-reaching
the
“process and
timetable for the
production”—
that
is the amendment’s terminology—would be.
The principle at the heart of
the proposal is the importance of national policy statements being
produced in a timely, efficient and open manner. We will follow that
principle in designating existing statements and in drawing up new
ones. The national policy statements will vary considerably in
complexity depending on the type of infrastructure that they deal with.
It is therefore right to leave judgments about the timing and
consultation periods—the process necessary to reach the point of
legitimate designation—to the Secretary of State.
On the matter of waste
strategy, if the Committee follows my logic, it is not a matter for me
but for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
to decide and explain whether, and particularly how and when, an
existing strategy or policy statement on waste may become a national
policy statement
I have explained the stages and
the standards that we would require of any policy statement being
designated as a national policy statement for the purposes of this
Bill. We would not expect to designate a strategy for waste before
2010. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee and to the hon. Lady
and that she will withdraw the amendment on that
basis.
Mrs.
Lait:
As I said, this is a probing amendment but I am not
entirely reassured by the Minister’s reply because there is such
concern outside this place about the potential for
“passporting”—I stick with that word—the
aviation policy without meeting the high standards that the Minister,
and the Committee, wish to see in a national policy
statement.
The
Minister said that I was trying to work out whether the consultation
was too long, but the fear is whether it will be skimped. I therefore
hope that he can reassure the Committee and those outside this House
that the existing policy statements will meet all the requirements of
every other national policy statement in respect of consultation,
sustainability and the various directives that are meant to govern
them. I should be grateful to have the Minister’s explicit
assurance on that matter before I withdraw the
amendment.
John
Healey:
I am happy to give it, as I have done several
times already. I made it clear that the architecture of the Bill would
require any policy statement that a Secretary of State wanted
designated as a national policy statement to meet the standards and
criteria set out in the Bill, particularly those on consultation and
sustainability, regardless of whether it was precisely the same as or
largely based on an existing strategy or policy statement or produced
afresh. Such a statement would also have to have gone through the
process that we propose for Parliament to exercise proper scrutiny.
That would have to take place and those standards would have to be met
before the designation could be
given.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 224, in
clause 5, page 3, line 5, at
end insert ‘, which must include flood
risk.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 225, in clause 5, page 3,
line 22, at end
insert—
‘(g) set out the
flood risk of identified
locations.’.
Mrs.
Lait:
This issue was highlighted by the Environment Agency
and many other people have expressed their concern about flood risk.
Mark Southgate
said:
“The
Government policy on flood risk is very clear; it is in PPS 25 on
planning, development and flood risk, which says that you should look
to the lowest flood-risk areas first and to the highest ones only when
no suitable alternatives are available. That is a very sound policy,
which we would expect to be incorporated within the national policy
statements.”——[Official Report, Planning Public
Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c.
102.]
That encapsulates our
point exactly.
We are all very concerned about
sustainability and climate change. One of the suspected consequences of
current climate change is the flooding we saw last summer and a number
of Members are suffering from floods in their constituencies as we sit
here now. I have an interest here, if not a registrable one, because I
have a home very close to Dungeness power station. Many of the
potential new sites and the current sites of nuclear power stations are
on the coast. I must say that I never expected to see a nuclear power
station even proposed for Dungeness again. However, we could have the
problem of rising sea levels and continual
flooding.
The
Government tell us regularly that they have no intention of building
their 3 million new homes on flood plains. Given the system that they
are trying to put in place, however, I do not know whether they can
even get close to that figure, and put houses anywhere anyone would
wish to live, if they do not put them on flood
plains.
Mr.
David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I do not think that
the Government have said anything of the sort. If they want 3 million
houses, it is said that those would have to be protected, but I am not
aware of any pledge that no houses will be built on a flood
plain.
Mrs.
Lait:
Indeed. My right hon. Friend is quite right. Perhaps
my use of irony did not come over quite as effectively as I hoped. I
absolutely accept what my right hon. Friend says. Even with safeguards,
we are expecting a lot of houses to be built on flood plains. We
therefore want assurances that the sustainability policy within the NPS
includes a very clear statement on flooding so that all of
us—house builders, the Environment Agency, the water companies,
the county councils who have to deal with flooding, the Highways
Agency—can be reassured that flooding issues will be taken very
firmly into account in the development of national policy
statements.
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): In supporting these
amendments it is important to look at what we are trying to achieve.
Some might argue that an appraisal of the sustainability of any aspect
of a national policy statement would not meet the definition of such an
entity if it did not include an assessment of flooding risk. It is
important to many organisations to put the measure in the Bill,
including the Environment Agency, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Beckenham said. It would create a discipline for those who draw up the
statements to look at the important matter of flooding.
Hon. Members will recall the
floods last July and the scene of the electricity transfer station near
Tewkesbury being saved by a major operation. Had the operation not been
successful, vast areas would have been without electricity for a long
period. If we imagine that situation occurring to a larger, more
strategic power generation plant, we can imagine the problems that we
could be building up.
It is vital that flooding be
included in policy statements as an item to consider with regard to the
potential for future problems. The building of a major highway or any
sort of structure could have major
impacts on the management of river systems and flood plains, so it is an
important issue. Some might say that the amendment would place an
onerous obligation on those who will draw up the statements, but it
should not do that because there are circumstances in which it would be
a perfectly simple, one-line job to fulfil the requirements. Other
circumstances might require a more important and detailed look at the
situation, but that would only happen if there is a problem. The
amendments would require an appraisal of sustainability to include
consideration of flooding risk.
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): May I add my support for
the amendment? Indeed, the issue of flooding was envisaged in the White
Paper, which
states:
“National
policy statements would also need to reflect the physical impacts of
climate change on nationally significant projects and the need for
resilience throughout their lifespan to factors such as increased risk
of flood, subsidence or coastal
realignment.”
In an era
of climate change, it would clearly be sensible to reflect that vital
aspect in national policy statements.
I fully accept that
the issue of sustainability must be reflected in policy statements. The
difficulty is that an expression that would define that is not in the
Bill. It is essential to underline, as amendment No. 224 would, the
issue of flooding and its overriding
importance.
1.30
pm
John
Healey:
The hon. Member for Newbury was absolutely right
about the importance of the sub-station that was affected by the July
floods in Gloucestershire. I visited it in the days immediately
following the floods and saw for myself the heroic efforts of the
emergency services and the armed forces to protect the power station.
That is one of the reasons that Pitt drew the lesson that he did in his
interim report, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made it clear that the
Government have fully accepted all 15 urgent recommendations, including
those from Pitt, that we take steps to ensure that such critical
utility infrastructure is properly and better protected in future. That
is different, however, from specifying a particular feature, such as
flood risk, in the Bill, and singling out its consideration as a
requirement in the production of national policy statements.
I should explain why the
appraisal of sustainability, which the Committee has already discussed,
and which will be required of every Secretary of State who produces a
national policy statement, deals with the matter. Appraisals of
sustainability are central to our consideration of future
infrastructure needs and to our sustainable development objectives. The
Bill contains the necessary provisions to ensure that national policy
statements take into account environmental and sustainability
considerations, including relevant documents such as PPS25 on the risk
of flooding. We have also made it clear that national policy statements
must integrate all the environmental, social and economic aspects of
policy. Ministers will have to take all those issues into account when
drawing up the statements, and that will include flood
risk.
It might also
interest the Committee that under clause 5(6), Ministers
must
“give reasons for
the policy set out in the statement.”
We can expect an explanation of the
factors, which in some instances will include flooding, to be drawn out
at that point. Finally, national policy statements will be subject to
public consultation and scrutiny in this House. I am sure that the
scrutiny in this House will ensure that all relevant aspects, including
the risk of flooding, will be properly taken into account in the final
versions of the national policy
statements.
I do not
accept that it is right to single out a specific feature in this way.
We have given a clear commitment that the Secretary of State will have
a duty to consider the issue of sustainability when producing a
national policy statement. Therefore, I do not believe that the
amendment advocated by the hon. Member for Beckenham is necessary to
achieve the ends that she has in mind.
Mrs.
Lait:
I add our thanks to those people who worked so hard
to ensure that that sub-station was not flooded last July. When I was
the Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye I spent the whole of one
Christmas and new year on tenterhooks as to whether Rye was going to
flood because we had some very heavy rain. I know exactly how
nail-biting it can be to watch the waters rise. That is why I take such
a personal interest in this
issue.
I am grateful
to the Minister for laying out his argument so clearly. I hope that it
has been heard beyond this room. If there are any further questions, we
might come back to the issue. However, on the basis of what the
Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(4A) The policy
set out in a national policy statement may
not—
(a) identify any
location or site as suitable (or potentially suitable) or unsuitable
for a specified description of
development;
(b) identify any
individual statutory undertaker or undertakers as appropriate persons
to carry out a specified description of
development.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 182, in
clause 5, page 3, line 16, leave
out paragraph
(d).
Amendment No.
183, in clause 5, page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph
(e).
New clause
3—Geographically-specified national policy
statements—
‘(1) This
section sets out the requirements for national policy statements which
make particular reference to specific geographical areas under section
5(5)(d).
(2) Where a proposal
for a national policy statement is made by the Secretary of State with
implications for a specific geographical area, the Secretary of State
shall commission and fund an assessment by the relevant local planning
authority, or authorities,
of—
(a) whether the
proposal is consonant with the principles enumerated in the
authority’s local development documents as defined in section 17
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
(b) the likely impact of the proposal on communities
within the local authority
area,
(c) whether the proposal
meets with the approval of persons residing in the relevant local
authority area, and
(d) any
other matter which the relevant planning authority considers
appropriate.
(3) A local
authority area is within subsection (2) if any of the locations
concerned is in the authority’s area, or a neighbouring
authority’s area.
(4) A
“proposal” in subsection (2) shall be defined as
in section
7(3).’.
Mrs.
Lait:
We are motoring through quite nicely. The reason for
this group of amendments is to tease out the confusion between national
policy statements that are site-specific and those that are not. What
will be the consequences of national policy statements that are
site-specific? The Minister will be aware that in the statement on
energy policy and nuclear power last week, the Secretary of State for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
said:
“The NPS
will need to be as site specific as it possibly can be in relation to
possible future nuclear sites.”—[Official Report,
10 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 529.]
On Second
Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal
(Mr. Gummer) made precisely that point on nuclear power
stations. Most of us could indicate where in England and Wales the
nuclear power stations will go and where they should go in Scotland.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon
pointed out, the problem is that having a national policy statement
that is site-specific is tantamount to giving planning permission.
There are also provisions within the clause that, while not
site-specific, could produce information that identifies sites or gives
otherwise clear indications of where the Secretary of State expects
development to be.
While we recognise that it is
difficult not to be site-specific, we would prefer policy statements
that are not site-specific because of the difficulty of implicit
planning permission. I am intrigued that the Minister is so interested
in that particular Secretary of State and hope that he will become
Secretary of State some day. However, a national policy statement
should be a statement of policy, not a statement of detail, in which
the Minister and the Secretary of State specify where those sites will
be. I am not entirely convinced that that is the best way forward as a
principle.
John
Healey:
The hon. Lady is right that I am interested. With
regard to her example of nuclear power stations, is she saying that the
Government should not identify sites that might be either suitable or
unsuitable?
Mrs.
Lait:
While I understand that it will be exceedingly
difficult to do so, particularly in relation to nuclear
development—my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and
Ripon might also have views on that—our view is that the
national policy statement should be a statement of policy rather than
specifics. I am not writing these things, but one could argue that
nuclear power stations should be sited close to the sea without saying
that that should be at Dungeness or
Sizewell.
John
Healey:
Will the hon. Lady explain how a policy statement
for nuclear power stations or ports, for instance, without any specific
reference to the location would assist either the process of assessing
a major investment infrastructure application or the provision of the
greater certainty and clarity for investment decisions, some of which
will be very big, that is needed for the future support of such
infrastructure in this
country?
Mrs.
Lait:
It is interesting that we suddenly appear to be
writing the Bill, but this is the Minister’s
legislation.
Mrs.
Lait:
We are indeed, because most of the time we are
trying to find out what the Minister means and what the thinking is.
For instance, I would suggest that when a national policy statement is
site-specific, that is in effect tantamount to giving planning
permission. There are consequences that flow from that. I am trying to
get the Minister to be forthcoming on whether he thinks it is correct
that a national policy statement will, in effect, give planning
permission for various developments, or whether a better way forward
would be to lay out the terms and conditions for such developments and
allow the contractors to come forward with their own site-specific
proposals.
Most of the
contractors are in the private sector, even though it is regulated.
Highways, of course, are not. I suggest that it is entirely up to them
to know where they want to develop. There could well be arguments about
where a new port should
go.
Mrs.
Lait:
If I may correct my right hon. Friend, one or two
significant ports are slightly up river. It is possible that a nuclear
power station could be built not next to the
sea—[
Interruption.
]
Mrs.
Lait:
Given that I am a supporter of nuclear power, do not
tempt me down that route, but what about the Minister’s
constituency? That would be true proof that he believes in nuclear
power, and how clean and safe it is.
Mrs.
Lait:
I would even advocate an incinerator, because these
days, with the right technology, they can be as clean and green, and as
sensible a solution to a number of our waste problems. But let us not
get diverted. I am grateful to the Chairman for allowing us to go down
this route for a
bit.
One can see,
without the degree of hilarity that we just arrived at, that there are
questions about how site-specific a national policy statement should
be. I
would like to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments so
that we may gather whether he foresees difficulties if a policy
statement is site-specific in its implied planning
permission.
I think we
all agree that there is a big problem. The hon. Lady tried valiantly to
defend the idea that it might be possible to have a national policy
statement for some sectors without getting into the business of
site-specifics. However, I suspect that, were the Government to consult
on the new generation of nuclear power stations, for example, and
talked about the coast in general, a legitimate question from the
public might be, “Are the Government considering prioritising
existing sites over new ones?” As soon as that question is
answered, we are into site-specifics.
Mr.
Curry:
It might be possible for the Government to put
forward a non-site-specific proposal in their statement, but I wonder
how it could get through parliamentary scrutiny without becoming much
more specific. Members of Parliament represent constituencies, and the
one thing that they will want to know is whether it will be in their
neck of the
woods.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for
that intervention. We are obviously musing on the same matters, in
particular with regard to amendment No. 181, which he has also
tabled.
New clause 3
recognises that there may well be site-specific aspects to NPSs, but
that those would be of huge concern to local people. I say
“local people” because the Minister has talked about the
consultation that will be undertaken at a national level on the
NPS.
Once the site is
identified, that will call into question the effect that it will have
on a particular local community. I want to make extra provision for
consultation through local authorities in the area, so that we have the
best local debate possible on how a proposal might proceed. Therefore,
when it comes to national consideration and detailed scrutiny of the
NPS, all the information will be there for this House and anybody else
who is examining it. Important local factors that could affect the
introduction and operation of an NPS might come to light only if the
views of local communities were considered in
consultation.
We would
all own up to the fact that even the best local authority reaches only
some people when consulting on its local development
framework—those who are very active in the community and who are
aware that it is coming up. The best local authorities, which hold
excellent roadshows and produce clear literature for people to respond
to, still do not get to
everybody.
When there
is potential for a nationally significant scheme to come to an area, it
will receive coverage. There could be huge anxiety in that area, and
there ought to be a process in the Bill that allows the local
authority, as the leading democratic organisation, to bring together
that opinion and knowledge and ensure that it is fed into the process
of compiling the NPS. Contingent on that is the need for resources to
come with that for those local authorities that suddenly find
themselves the beneficiary of being considered for a nationally
important scheme through an NPS.
1.45
pm
Mr.
Llwyd:
I am listening carefully to the hon.
Gentleman’s reasoning and he is on to a good thing. However,
there could be a slight problem because we were advised in the evidence
sessions that county councils will be expected to assist potential
objectors. There could be a conflict in assisting in the implementation
and development of a national policy statement, on the one hand, and
being duty bound to assist objectors to a development, on the
other.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
highlighting what might at first appear to be a potential conflict. New
clause 3 seeks to establish a process to enable local authorities to
bring opinion together, not to co-ordinate systematic objection, but to
ensure that, along with national consultation and scrutiny, a local
element is fed into the process. I hope that the Committee will be
sympathetic to the new clause, which I think would improve matters when
NPSs have site-specific
allocations.
Mr.
Curry:
I am beginning to think that the chairman of the
IPC had better be a theologian because how many angels can get through
the eye of a needle is likely to be one of the more pressing questions
to come before him in the early
stages.
I would have
preferred national policy statements which end with a conclusion that
certain infrastructure of national importance should be built at a
certain place. I would not bother with the IPC at all because the key
document in all of this will be the planning statement. However, we
have decided to have an IPC. The issue now is where the interface lies
between the planning statement and the practical decision to give
planning permission. The problem is that the issues that will be
subject to planning statements, by definition, are so big and are of
such national importance that it becomes very difficult in practice to
draw a distinction between a framework and a specific application for a
particular site. The Government will have to try to tread that line.
The Minister said that the framework document will be submitted to
scrutiny outside and, particularly, inside Parliament. However, the
only question that people will be interested in asking in the course of
that scrutiny is, “Where?” It will be difficult for a
Minister to appear before a Select Committee, whatever shape it
takes—and he or she will appear before it—but the
question will be, “Where do you have in
mind?”
Nobody
will be working from a clean sheet, because we all know that, in
practice, there is a shortlist. We will know of only a handful of sites
that are relevant to the siting of a new nuclear power station.
Frankly, there is probably only one site relevant to the storage of
nuclear waste, which would be such a controversial issue and subject to
such detailed work that it would be almost impossible to see anything
other than a site-specific conclusion at the end of any process. If it
is going to be buried, it would be buried in Sellafield—that
would almost certainly be the outcome.
On ports, we know which are
nationally strategic, because the Bill includes size criteria that in
themselves serve to define which ports may want to expand to create
greater national capacity, although I accept that
there may be a slightly more open agenda on other matters. To what
extent, in practice, will a framework document in the circumstances I
described lead to nothing more than an entirely duplicate application
for planning permission? Will it lead to a scrutinisation of the
planning statement that will, in practice, be almost entirely
replicated in the planning permission process and IPC
scrutiny?
I recognise that the issue is
difficult. The Minister wishes to use the IPC to deal with issues of
national importance, and I am extremely sympathetic to what he is
seeking to achieve, but trying to maintain a distinction does not work.
My hon. Friend is striving nobly to an end that is difficult to
attain—it is like finding a manager who will make Newcastle
United a decent football team once more. Equally, the Minister is
drawing a distinction that is difficult in practice to sustain because
the overlap is so enormous. As soon as we move away from the abstract
to talk about specific sectors, we will almost immediately start to
talk about places. Frankly, that is rightly part of the scrutiny
process. In a sense, both the Minister and my hon. Friend are
struggling to deliver something that is undeliverable because of the
lack of distinctions.
John
Healey:
The hon. Lady has dug something of a hole for
herself. I would certainly be prepared to help her out if she wants to
withdraw the amendment and I urge my hon. Friends to resist
it.
Given that
national policy statements are intended to provide the primary
reference point for the IPC’s work, it is important
that they provide a sufficient framework. The statements will also
provide the framework for major investment decisions. Again, the
greater the degree of clarity and certainty that we can properly
include in national policy statements, the more helpful they will be
and the more likely it is that that essential investment will be
considered. I honestly cannot see how a national policy statement that
serves the function we will require of it for the IPC, given the role
that it will play in encouraging greater investment, can work for
transport, rail and road networks, for which the location is intrinsic
to the infrastructure. Such situations are different from those
involving certain forms of electricity and power generation such as
renewables, where location specificity simply is not as intrinsic to
the policy statement and framework as seems sensible and natural to
produce.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I understand what
the Minister is saying about certain types of operation where the
national policy statement would, in effect, be location-specific or
very close thereto, but will he deal with the point raised by my hon.
Friend at the beginning? If a national policy statement states that we
need x power stations of a certain kind and there are three possible
locations, and three is what we need, to all intents and purposes, that
is the planning permission. Once the national policy statement has said
that and has identified a small number of sites, which by the nature of
the operation cannot go anywhere else, planning permission is
effectively being given. If that is the case, how does the Minister
justify not giving those affected by the proposals exactly the same
rights to consultation and participation as they would have had a
separate application been made? I understand his logic and I am asking
him to follow it through.
I am
dealing with the contention that somehow we can have national policy
statements that prescribe specific locations. I simply do not
understand how that can make sense. For example, if a national policy
statement on aviation determined, through the process of preparing and
designating it, that a third runway was required at Heathrow, it is
difficult to see how one could set out the policy statement without
specifying that that third runway was needed at Heathrow. Similarly, it
is difficult to see how a national policy statement that determined
that it is important to expand the road capacity from A to B could be
set out if it did not actually say that. At the heart of the hon.
Lady’s argument is a real problem for the concept of a national
policy statement, which she says she strongly supports. She says it
would be a good innovation.
Let me try to deal with the
question of whether any site-specific or locational references would be
tantamount to giving planning permission or pre-empting the
consideration of permission of an application. The same sort of
territory concerned the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. As I
have tried to explain, it is not tantamount to planning permission; it
is not pre-empting the proper consideration of any application. A
site-specific national policy statement would provide the framework for
examination by the IPC, but it would not prejudge the decisions that
the IPC would be required to make. By identifying particularly suitable
or likely suitable sites or, indeed, unsuitable sites, it will reduce
the debate about suitability and those associated issues at a local
level as part of the application process. In many ways it will help to
achieve what we have set out to do, which is to ensure that those big
debates about need, policy and other such considerations are not
repeated whenever an application is considered in the planning process.
Again, that is broadly welcomed as a feature of what we are trying to
do.
Mr.
Jones:
The Minister says that the national policy
statement would reduce the debate about suitability. Would it not
eliminate the debate about suitability? Therefore, the inquiry that
would be conducted by the IPC would be nothing more than going through
the motions; it would be a ritual dance that had only one
conclusion.
2
pm
John
Healey:
No. The IPC would still need to examine the
details of an application. It could—I am sure that it
will—in some cases reject an application on a particular site or
it could set conditions on an application to mitigate the effects on a
site.
Mrs.
Lait:
I thought I had a clear picture of
what the Minister was expecting of the interchange between the NPS and
the IPC but I am again confused. He said that the IPC would be able to
turn down planning applications.
Would the IPC be able to turn down a third runway at Heathrow? Or would
the fact that that project was specified in the national policy
statement mean that all the IPC could do in response to local
residents’ complaints would be to set conditions, which would be
such that the third runway would not be viable? Would it be able to do
that?
John
Healey:
The short answer is yes. The IPC could turn down,
or set conditions, on any application; that is central to the scope of
its remit and the role that we wish it to
play.
Robert
Neill:
The Minister has been very helpful. I accept that I
was wrong to say that what is proposed would be tantamount to planning
permission in certain circumstances. To take the Heathrow analogy, a
specific application for a third runway could be turned down despite
the fact that the NPS says that there should be a third runway. There
would thus be one of two situations. First, the unelected IPC might
overturn the NPS, which has been the subject of democratic
parliamentary scrutiny. Most people would regard that as unconscionable
and most of those who think that it speeds up the planning system would
see it as self-defeating. Secondly, the application might be turned
down because detail or design conditions are attached. In that event,
perhaps I should have said that a site-specific national policy
statement is tantamount to outline planning permission. It would surely
be that at the very least.
John
Healey:
I thought that what I had said was pretty clear
and unsurprising. Of course, the IPC could turn down an application if
it had grounds to do so.
Mr.
Curry:
In the Minister’s first remarks on this
group of amendments, he said that the NPS was the “primary
reference point” for the IPC. If it is a primary reference point
for the commission, I do not see how the commission can turn down an
application based on a named project in the NPS. But if it is a primary
reference point for people putting in applications that is certainly a
different
matter.
John
Healey:
I am surprised that the Committee seems to be
making rather a meal of this proposal. Of course the commission could
turn down an application for a development on a site, despite it being
deemed a suitable site for a particular development. The application
itself may be deemed unsuitable and the IPC could perfectly well turn
down that application—or set conditions on it—if it felt
it had the grounds to do
so.
Mr.
Llwyd:
On that point, given that the national policy
statement would have been through all kinds of scrutiny, including
flood risk assessment, what possible grounds could there be for the IPC
to turn it
down?
John
Healey:
The IPC could turn the application down if it felt
that it was not a suitable application or development for that site or
if the national benefits set out in the national policy statement were
outweighed by some of the local disbenefits or problems with
particular applications. In all honesty, I think that hon. Members
recognise that there are limits to how specific I can be when asked to
suggest how an IPC that we have not yet set up might hypothetically
consider, in general terms, applications that have not yet been
submitted, within a policy framework that we are still discussing how
to produce and that is not yet in place.
Several hon.
Members
rose—
Mr.
Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): I am grateful for the clarity
that the Minister has brought to the role of the IPC and to the powers
that it will have. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the
democratic deficit with regard to the IPC and national policy
statements. Notwithstanding the fact that I appreciate the scrutiny
that the Committee is trying to apply to that, could the Minister
explain for the benefit of the Committee what the substantive
difference would be between the IPC taking the decision under these new
proposals and a judge taking a decision at a public inquiry
now?
John
Healey:
My hon. Friend has made a good point and draws me
on to the areas of concern that the hon. Member for North Cornwall
raised on democracy and consultation. His general argument is right: it
is critical that those in any location who might be affected by a
potential development should be properly consulted. He is right that
they need to be properly informed and to understand the possible
implications of any national policy statements that include specific
locations within their draft terms. It is important that they also have
the chance to give their views. That is why we have clause 7(5) in
particular and why clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to consult
with local authorities when any aspect of a national policy statement
draft includes specific locations.
Mr.
Jones:
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being
extremely generous. Does he agree that if the IPC were conducting an
inquiry with reference to an NPS that referred to a specific location,
it would be virtually impossible for the IPC to turn down the
application on the grounds of locational suitability? It would be a
golden thread running through the inquiry. Whatever anyone else might
say about the merits of the application, the question of its location
would be a touchstone and could not be
challenged.
John
Healey:
An important part of the process proposed in the
Bill is that there should be the scope within national policy
statements to identify locations that the Government, after
consultation, parliamentary scrutiny, the production and finalising of
the national policy statement and everything that should be taken into
account in that assessment, judge to be suitable for a particular type
of development. Locations might also be found to be unsuitable. That
will inevitably be, and is designed to be, an important framework and
starting point for the IPC in considering applications.
The hon.
Member for Clwyd, West makes a reasonable point, which is similar, but
in slightly longer terms, to the one I made earlier. The IPC’s
consideration of the suitability or unsuitability of a site is likely
to be shorter if that matter is already part of a national policy
statement. However, that is not equivalent to there being an automatic
green light for any application that may come forward for such a site,
nor is it tantamount to saying that the IPC cannot turn down an
application for a site that has been deemed suitable in a national
policy
statement.
To
return to the concern over consultation, there will be an opportunity
to consider issues specific to an application at the local stage in
relation to site layout, siting, access and the environmental impact.
Again, a central feature of the proposals is that in certain national
policy statements, the Secretary of State will have the discretion to
identify particular locations as likely to be suitable or unsuitable
for the infrastructure that they have in mind, taking into account
consultation and parliamentary
scrutiny.
Mr.
Curry:
I am intrigued by the designation of unsuitability.
No doubt 99.9 per cent. of the UK is unsuitable for the development of
nuclear power stations and, by definition, ports. Is it not sufficient
to designate what is suitable, given the purpose of a policy statement?
Areas that are unsuitable will take up pages and pages with entirely
superfluous
information.
John
Healey:
What we are discussing is not a
requirement to identify suitable or unsuitable locations, but the scope
to do so when it is appropriate in a national policy statement. It may
or may not be appropriate to identify unsuitable locations. I can
imagine, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can, that there would be
a strong interest during consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in a
confirmation that certain locations are unsuitable for developments in
some national policy statements. All we propose in the Bill is that the
Secretary of State should have the scope to identify locations that are
likely to be suitable and, on the other hand, to decide that it seems
sensible to identify locations that would be
unsuitable.
Amendments
Nos. 181 to 183 would prevent the identification of a
statutory undertaker as being appropriate to carry out work. Under
clause 5(5)(e), the Secretary of State can identify one or more
organisations, as appropriate, to carry out a specific type of
development. In certain cases only certain developers such as the
Highways Agency or Network Rail will be in a position to provide the
sort of infrastructure that a national policy statement covers. We are
simply allowing organisations in such circumstances to be identified,
where appropriate.
I
have dealt with new clause 3 to the extent that there are duties on the
Secretary of State to consult when there is a location-specific element
in a national policy statement. Quite honestly, we already expect local
authorities to represent their communities and, by and large, even
Liberal Democrat councils do so pretty effectively. I do not think that
this provision is needed to force them to do so. It is certainly not
needed to set out how they should do it. The hon. Member for North
Cornwall has not really made his case for the new clause. I hope that
he will not press it to a Division, because I would have to ask my hon.
Friends to resist it.
2.15
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
I listened with interest as the Minister set out
where he feels there are already provisions in the Bill that would
allow local communities to have a thorough opportunity to give their
view when an NPS was being constructed with site-specific locations
contained therein. He pointed in the direction of clause 7(5), which
talks about the Secretary of State ensuring that appropriate steps are
taken to publicise the proposal. That comes back to the point that I
was trying to make in my earlier remarks about a bit of publicity that
will reach perhaps one group of people who are quite often engaged with
these sorts of things.
We could be talking
about a very significant development that will affect an area for many
years to come. If it is a facility that has a lifespan to it, once it
is established we may well find that in 50 years’ time when it
comes to be replaced there will already be a brownfield site. We could
be talking about sites that will have some form of facility on them
virtually in perpetuity. To say that the Secretary of State will
publicise this, is not good
enough.
John
Healey:
Before the hon. Gentleman continues any further,
could I urge him to look at clause 7(5) and clause 8(1)? I mentioned
both and if he looks at the interplay between the two, his
understandable concerns will be
met.
Dan
Rogerson:
I have looked at those subsections because the
Minister mentioned them. I can see how he might feel that they would be
sufficient, but I am keen to see something in the Bill that says that
there will be significant local consultation in any such area that has
been identified, and that the resources to carry that out would come
from the centre and would not fall as a burden on local
authorities.
Going
back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell)
said when the White Paper was introduced, the key question when our
party was considering the IPC was whether it would be able to say no.
Notwithstanding the Minister’s statement that in certain
circumstances it might well say no, there is no great confidence across
the country that once something is in an NPS and set in tablets of
stone, and has gone through scrutiny in this place and elsewhere, the
IPC will be able to overturn it on a few technicalities. The most
important part of the process for such a locality will be at the
NPS-setting stage. It is therefore my intention to press the new clause
to a vote. I thank the Minister for his comments, but I am not
convinced that what is in the Bill at the moment is good
enough.
Mrs.
Lait:
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon.
Member for North Cornwall has said. In a sense it is all part of this
consultation issue, on which the Government have made some progress
since the White Paper but not enough to ensure that people have the
right to be
heard.
Mrs.
Lait:
Let us wait and see. I have a
great deal of sympathy and it is highly possible that he will have a
great deal of sympathy with our three amendments and we could come to
an arrangement. Because we were conscious of the difficulties that
could arise from site
specificity and the implication that a site-specific national planning
policy would give to sites, we tabled what I thought were three fairly
innocuous-looking amendments to tease out a worthwhile and necessary
debate. I certainly did not expect the complications and implications
that have emerged in our discussions.
I am grateful
to the Minister for being so clear, open and candid, but I am even more
confused than when we started. Apart from anything else, and while
wishing to stay in order, we have a wonderful view of the IPC being
able to refuse or to make very difficult a planning application for
something in the national policy statement that has been agreed by the
House and through general consultation. Those on the IPC would not only
then be taking on Parliament, but the Secretary of State and the
Department to which they are responsible for both their employment and
their pay and rations. It would be a brave commissioner who would do
so, particularly as, under paragraph 4(2)(c) of schedule
1:
“The
Secretary of State may remove a person from office as the chair, or as
a deputy or other Commissioner, if the Secretary of State is satisfied
that...the person is otherwise unfit to perform the duties of the
office.”
I would imagine
that many Secretaries of State might throw a real wobbly and decide
that a commissioner was unfit for office. That does not reflect
terribly well on the Secretary of
State.
John
Healey:
When we debate schedule 2 at a later stage, the
hon. Lady might want to make those rather unworthy points again, but
she should understand clearly that the power in that schedule could not
possibly be exercised in those circumstances by any Secretary of
State.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sure that those people who will volunteer to be
commissioners will bear that comment in mind when they are approaching
employment, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Because of
the information that the Minister has given us, under some fairly close
questioning, I will invite my hon. Friends to press the amendment to a
vote.
The
Chairman:
For the benefit of the Committee, a vote on new
clause 3 will come later in the proceedings, when we come to the new
clauses. The current question relates to amendment No.
181.
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
11.
Division
No.
7
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
We have had a good discussion on
the clause, but one thing that always concerns me, as someone who was
scarred by the experience of the Child Support Agency, is that the
minute a policy is agreed on in the House, one looks immediately for
the difficulties that will emerge. We have gone through a number of
those that we have foreseen, but I still think that the clause,
although it is acceptable in principle, has some problems that we will
need to tease out still
further.
We have tried
by amendment to clarify and tighten up a number of the issues involved
in the production of these statements, because we have grave concerns
about the detail and practice, which we will undoubtedly come back to
in debates about subsequent clauses.
I remain concerned about the
sheer number of these national policy statements that we could be faced
with. It is not just we in Parliament who could be faced with them but,
of course, the British public, because, as the hon. Member for North
Cornwall made clear, we should not just consult the usual suspects
about these national policy statements. We must ensure that we engage
with a much wider public. It is highly possible, indeed likely, that,
because Parliament will be involved in the scrutiny in whatever form
that takes, there will be a greater interest than there would normally
be when the Department consults. Certainly, if there are site-specific
policy statements, I would expect a huge level of interest,
particularly if people feel that their peace of mind and their
environment are going to be disturbed.
Therefore, we could face a
situation, as I have already said, of parliamentary constipation as we
try to get these national policy statements through the House so that
everybody knows the direction in which they are going, including the
developers and the communities in which these developments will be
sited.
Will the
Minister give us some idea of the number of policy statements that he
expects? For instance, yesterday I heard that we were going to have one
on fossil fuels, one on nuclear energy and one on renewables; that is
three statements from just one Department on one subject. We could go
on for ever with these statements. How many will we have on transport?
Will there be statements on ports and ancillary roads, roads, rail and
air? We could go on for ever. If the Minister can give me a total, I
will be happy.
John
Healey:
I do not want to detain the Committee or repeat
myself too often. I have said at least twice during the course of these
proceedings, including once already today, that, as the hon. Lady will
see if she looks at the schedule published with the statements on 27
November, we expect about a dozen national policy statements in
total.
Mrs.
Lait:
A dozen at the moment—that
is my reaction to that statement, I am afraid. Every time, we seem to
get another angle that implies another national policy statement. I am
sure that the Minister wishes and hopes that he will only have to deal
with a dozen. Even if there are only a dozen national policy
statements, getting the British public and Parliament to deal with them
will cause huge congestion in the consultation system, however it is
developed. That is before we get into any other areas of continuous
review.
However, let us accept that we
only have a dozen and let us hope that the fears that we have raised
about this clause do not come into play. I still wish that the
Government would accept and take on board our points to try to make
these national policy statements a much more effective mechanism than I
currently believe that they will be under the Bill. Although I support
the clause and shall not vote against it, I hope that the Minister will
accept that the mechanism is not yet perfect and that there is a way to
go.
2.30
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
We have heard several times how much consensus
there is in this place and out in the real world on the idea that
national policy statements are a sensible way forward. Given how
supportive we are of the concept, I was hoping that the Minister would
be a little more generous about getting it right. He should listen to
what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee said about
scrutiny—we had a long debate about that—and the question
of site specificity, as he called it. I am disappointed, therefore,
that he has not said that he will change things much in the direction
that the rest of the Committee would like to see.
Having said that, my support
for national policy statements as a concept is on record, so I shall
not oppose the clause. However, I would hope that, as the Bill
progresses, the Minister and his team will consider and take on board
some of the measures proposed in the other groups of amendments that we
have
debated.
John
Healey:
Hon. Members are right: we have had a thorough
debate on some important issues, not only on this clause, but on
previous, linked measures. Clause 5 is an important part of the Bill.
It sets out the definition of a national policy statement and what is
required of Governments when they produce the statements. NPSs are
central to the proposed new system. They will set the strategic policy
framework within which the IPC will consider applications for major
investments and major infrastructure. National policy statements do,
indeed, have broad support from a range of interests. I am glad that
they have all-party
support.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 6Review
‘(A1) The
Secretary of State shall consider continuously whether each national
policy statement should be
reviewed.
(A2) The Secretary of
State shall lay before Parliament and publish each year a report on the
national policy statements which have been designated and whether a
review is being carried out or will be carried
out.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be
convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in
clause 6, page 3, line 31, after
‘must’, insert ‘continuously’.
No. 73, in
clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave
out from ‘statement’ to end of line 32 and insert
‘annually and publish a
report’.
No. 8,
in
clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave
out from ‘statement’ to end of line
32.
No. 74, in
clause 10, page 5, line 24, at
end add—
‘(4) The Secretary
of State must report on the progress of the review at 28 day
intervals.’.
Mrs.
Lait:
We are moving on to some of the more arcane detail
of bringing national policy statements into being. The clause deals
with the review of the statements. The amendments would ensure that
once a national policy statement is in place, it is fit for purpose
whenever a new planning application emerges. Subsection 6(1) bothers me
because it
states:
“The
Secretary of State must review each national policy statement whenever
the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do
so.”
I look forward to
hearing what the Minister has to say about this. The problem is
that
“whenever...appropriate
to do so”
could be, and
is likely to be, a reaction to a planning application. Any review
process will, of necessity, take time. A continuous review and an
annual report, which we are proposing, would allow the NPS to be always
up to date.
Having
said that, I should not like the Minister to think that we expect
legions of civil servants to sit and read national policy statements
and all the technical papers and advice involved in major
infrastructure projects on a daily basis, but there ought to be a
mechanism whereby technical literature and developments are under
continuous review. That way, as soon as there is a new development that
could have a bearing on an NPS, it would be flagged up to the Secretary
of State and the review could begin at that stage rather than
later.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I am listening to the hon. Lady and agree about the
wording of the clause. I must say that the drafting is rather
strange—I have not seen anything quite as strange as this for
some time. [Interruption.] I read Private Eye and various
other things.
The clause
states:
“The
Secretary of State must review each national policy statement whenever
the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do
so.”
We are
always being told about words that are otiose. Surely the clause should
state that the Secretary of State must review each NPS
“periodically or from time to
time”.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that
and I have some sympathy with him. I gave up reading Private Eye
some years ago. Perhaps I should read it more
often.
The problem
with including a reference to a time scale as opposed to the process
being continuous is that we never know when a technological development
may emerge. If “from time to time” is defined as, say,
once a year, given the technological fervour in areas such as waste
disposal, that review may come after the technological development and
the desire for an infrastructure contractor to build a new
facility.
For example—it may not be
entirely appropriate, but because it is current it comes immediately to
mind—E.ON has made a planning application for a carbon capture,
coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth as a response to a Treasury
competition to design carbon capture facilities. Good on the Treasury
for encouraging that research; I do not have any problem with it as
long as it does not cost us any money—I put that in before I am
accused of committing us to vast expenditure.
It is highly possible that a
company would wish to make a planning application for a carbon capture
power station but the NPS is not sufficiently up to date to allow the
IPC to give it planning permission. That is why I have a problem with
specifying a time scale and why I think that these matters should be
kept under continuous review.
As I said, I do not suggest
that we have a whole section, either in the Department for Communities
and Local Government or anywhere else, reviewing the literature; it is
not that difficult these days, especially with the internet. We all
want clean technologies, sustainable development and better
infrastructure, but in order to get innovative new ideas tried, tested
and out into the public domain, it is better to keep things under
continuous review. That is preferable to the Secretary of State
suddenly waking up one Tuesday morning before coming in for questions
and saying, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to look at the
NPS for waste?” That is not a sufficiently robust system, but it
is what will pertain under clause 6(1) as drafted. Heaven knows, in a
couple of years we will have a new Secretary of State. With the best
will in the world, reviewing NPS will not be at the forefront of any
Secretary of State’s mind as he or she tries to deal with the
mess that is left by this Government. [Interruption.] We are
worrying about it and believe me, we need to worry.
If there is somebody in the
Department whose remit it is to keep an eye on technological and other
developments in these sectors, they can be flagged up continuously and
that will allow the market to develop for the infrastructure projects
that we want.
“whenever the
Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do
so.”
I understand why
that would not be a cause for concern within the Department, but it
might be a concern in the House. However, I will not go over the hon.
Lady’s argument as we seem to be making
progress.
I have a
concern about NPSs being reviewed continuously. If an NPS is to mean
something to people, they have to know that it is in place for a
certain period. Amendment No. 73 suggests that they should be reviewed
annually. That might be too short a period. However, if they are
continuously being reviewed, that could call into question the whole
purpose of having them because it could affect people’s
confidence that they can submit an application in line with an
NPS.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am trying to make the NPS the servant of
technology rather than technology the servant of the
NPS.
Dan
Rogerson:
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of
clarification. My feeling was that we should put a time limit on the
NPS and my suggestion was to review it annually. Amendment No. 73 is a
probing
amendment.
Amendment
No. 74 is on the related issue of an NPS being suspended. If something
comes to light, as is set out in clause 10, which leads the Secretary
of State to feel that an NPS should be suspended, it is not a trifling
matter. There might be applications in the pipeline on which a great
deal of expense and community anticipation are hanging. As the rest of
the Bill seems to be quite fond of a period of 28 days for everybody
else to conform to, I thought that the Secretary of State should have
to answer after 28 days as to why a suspension remains in place. It
might be slightly mischievous of me, but I felt that it would be useful
for the Minister to clarify in what circumstances he envisages an NPS
being suspended, how rare that might be and how soon it would be back
in place or an amended NPS brought to the House for consideration. This
issue is important because crucial applications could be before the IPC
in that
time.
Mr.
Jones:
I support amendment No. 185. I also want to echo
the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. We
learned our law within 25 miles of each other and I share his
bemusement at the
expression
“whenever the
Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do
so.”
I think
that what is intended in the clause is probably very similar to what my
hon. Friend intends in the amendment—in other words, the NPS
should not be regarded as being cast in tablets of stone, but as being
capable of development. The point is that things move forwards,
especially technology. I am concerned that if statements are not kept
under review, an application for development could be rejected because
of a national policy statement that was developed on the basis of an
old technology and does not accommodate the new
technology.
It was not
so long ago that the Government regarded nuclear power as an
unattractive and unpalatable option. Now it is regarded as the solution
to all our electricity generation problems. If the statement that it is
an unpalatable option had been in the form of an NPS, it would not have
been possible for a new developer to come forward with an application
for a new nuclear power station, notwithstanding the fact that nuclear
technology and nuclear waste disposal technology have moved on apace in
recent years.
What the
Government are seeking to achieve is very similar to what my hon.
Friend is seeking to achieve. However, she puts it rather better, so I
suggest that the Minister accepts the
amendment.
2.45
pm
Mr.
Betts:
On amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95, I am sure that my
hon. Friend will be relieved to know that I do not intend to address
each in turn at great
length—
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman
refers to amendments that we are not considering. We are on amendments
Nos. 185, 7, 73, 8 and 74. His amendments are to the next
clause.
I am not sure that the hon.
Lady’s proposition is practical, but am sure that it is not
sensible. The central question is why review when a review is not
necessary. Surely, the time to review a national policy statement is
when the relevant circumstances have changed, rather than to be
required somehow to do so continually or when circumstances have not
changed. As she rightly pointed out in her example, one circumstance
that might allow for a review would be a significant development of
technology.
A development
of science might be another example. For instance, if better science
and analysis demonstrated that the environmental effects of a
particular type of renewable technology were not as good as had been
thought, that might change the substance and circumstances of an
element of the national policy statement and suggest the need for
review. To simply review for review’s sake or when there has
been no significant change in circumstances is not a practical or
sensible
proposition.
Dan
Rogerson:
At the risk of getting into Sir Humphrey
territory of reviewing reviews and announcing the review of the review,
how will we know that a review is necessary unless a review has taken
place? The Minister said that we will not conduct a review unless
circumstances have changed. How will the Secretary of State be aware
when significant circumstances have changed without having some sort of
eye on what is happening in the sector and with
applications?
John
Healey:
The Secretary of State will have to consider from
time to time whether a review is necessary. It is not only the
Secretary of State, however, who is in a position to make a judgment on
whether circumstances have changed to the extent that a review is
necessary. Clause 12 gives any interested party the specific right to
challenge the Secretary of State if they believe that those
circumstances have changed and a review is necessary but the Secretary
of State is not going to have one.
John
Healey:
The Bill, therefore, provides the framework for
dealing with precisely the sort of concerns that the hon. Lady and the
hon. Member for Clwyd, West are right to anticipate. However, her
amendments are not the answer to their
concerns.
Mr.
Jones:
Is not the problem with the subsection as drafted,
however, that it is a strange mix of the mandatory and the
discretionary? There is a positive duty on the Secretary of State to
review national policy, but only when he feels that his state of
digestion impels him to think about it. Frankly, ought not it to be
mandatory all the way through? Currently, we have this strange
compulsion, but only when the Secretary of State feels it necessary.
Surely, it should be a question of periodic review. There need not
necessarily be continuous reviews, but there certainly should be
something that an aggrieved person can latch on to so that they can
say, “Well, you should have reviewed it at that particular point
but did
not.”
John
Healey:
Clause 12 is there precisely for an aggrieved
person to, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, latch on to, but why
review periodically when there is nothing to review? In the end,
someone will have to make a judgment about initiating that review
process. The national policy statements are produced as the
responsibility of the Secretary of State, and it is appropriate that
that responsibility and initiative lies with the Secretary of State. It
is also appropriate for this House to take a view if the Secretary of
State seems reluctant to have a review when there appears to be a
change of circumstances that would warrant it. Any interested party
could latch on, to use the hon. Gentleman’s words again, through
the rights under clause 12 to impel or challenge precisely that
process.
John
Healey:
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beckenham
because she tried to intervene before. Then, if necessary, I will give
way to
others.
English is a
glorious and flexible language, and I do not have any problem with it
becoming the international language. However, it is because of its very
flexibility that I suspect we are using the word “review”
in two distinct senses. I am using the word in the sense of keeping up
to date—keeping a review of the technological and scientific
literature. I suspect, if I may put words into the Minister’s
mouth, that he is using the word in the more formal sense of setting
out on a review of the NPS, with all the consultation that is
required.
If we are
agreed that we are using the word in slightly different senses, I am
sure that we can come up with a wording that will both answer the
Opposition’s concerns and deal with the Minister’s
concern about the formal side of the review
process.
John
Healey:
I think that the hon. Lady is being half-helpful.
Let me start with the good news. On the positive side, having spent
five years in the Treasury, we did, indeed, use the word
“review” often in the sense that she is suggesting. We,
as a Government, keep all taxation policy constantly under review,
which I think is the meaning that she intends. Clearly, in the context
of the Bill and of potential revisions to national policy statements
that have gone through the sort of formal process that we discussed
under the previous clause, “review” has a different
import.
Given that distinction, the hon.
Lady must accept that it does not make sense to have a continual, or
even a periodic, process of review. It makes sense to have a review
when the circumstances that would suggest that it is necessary have
changed. I do not think that it is necessary to try somehow to write
into primary legislation an expectation or obligation that a Secretary
of State would keep a close eye on all developments relevant to his or
her policy area, including on national policy statements. It is part
and parcel of the job that we do as Ministers, but, ultimately, as I
have said, if a Secretary of State is failing to do that and is
failing, therefore, to have the sort of formal review—let us
call it that, although it is not the technical term used
here—that either an interested party or Parliament might think
the Secretary of State should have, there is scope to challenge that,
and it would be appropriate to do
so.
The Bill gets the
balance right between a framework that can provide a degree of
certainty for potential investors looking at major infrastructure
options, and a degree of certainty about the framework within which the
IPC works, against an expectation that they will be reviewed and
revised when appropriate and when circumstances
change.
I hope, given
the mood in the Committee, that we can move on fairly swiftly, because
there are substantial items still to
discuss.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I do not agree with the Minister that the words
“from time to time” would necessarily trigger a wasteful
review. It would simply mean that the Minister would from time to time
have to review. It does not mean that suddenly the doors would be
opened to a review if it was not necessary. Quite the
reverse.
I now
understand why the wording,
“whenever the Secretary of State
thinks it is appropriate to do
so”,
has been included in
clause 6—it is to open up the possibility of a legal challenge
under clause 12. If the Secretary of State takes a conscious decision
whether it is appropriate or not to undertake a review, that is
challengeable under clause 12. I think that that is the reason for the
rather extravagant
wording.
John
Healey:
I am not sure whether the wording is extravagant.
However, the purpose of clause 12—let us say linked to clause 6,
just to remain in order here—is to give an explicit right and
scope for people to challenge the Secretary of State in conducting or
discharging his or her duties under this Bill, whether that is to do
with the production of a national policy statement, or a review, or a
failure to review when circumstances warrant it.
I hope that that statement is
helpful to the Committee and I hope that we can move
on.
Mrs.
Lait:
Given that the Minister and Conservative Members
have been half-helpful to one another, I intend to withdraw the
amendment—albeit on the grounds that we may well return to the
issue—because the Minister has probably given us the answer that
we need, which is the difference between review and revision. However,
we may well come back to this in subsequent
proceedings.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments.
However, I would still be grateful if he can provide any clarification
on reporting back in the period when an NPS is suspended, so that
people have an indication of what is likely to happen. That would be
important to applications that are going on, and so on. I do not know
whether he has anything to say on
that.
John
Healey:
I will try to be brief and helpful at the same
time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to return to this issue in
more detail when we debate clause 98.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 18 January 2008 |