 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 CommitteeTuesday 22 January 2008(Morning)[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]Planning BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HousePB 31
WWF-UK
10.30
am
Mrs.
Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): On a point of order,
Mr. Illsley, would it be in order to ask the
Government when we can expect to see the consultation
on the draft regulations on the community infrastructure levy? I
understand the need to press on so that we can spend as much time on
the measures as they deserve, but until we have seen the draft
consultation it will be difficult to debate the clauses in any depth
and with any knowledge of how the bodies concerned will be affected and
what their reaction will be. May I also ask when we can expect to see
the clauses relating to the powers of the Welsh Assembly?
I welcome you back to the
Chair, Mr. Illsley, and hope that you are not as croaky as
you sound and are not suffering too much from the bug that many people
have.
The
Chairman:
That is not a point of order for the Chair; it
is a point for debate and for the
Government.
The
Minister for Local Government (John Healey):
On a point of
information, we propose to publish, as we have signalled, a
consultation document that will flesh out that issue in more detail and
help the Committee in its consideration of the details of the community
infrastructure levy when we get to that point in the proceedings. That
consultation will look at how we propose to develop the
community infrastructure levy, but not at the draft regulations
requested by the hon. Lady, which will clearly come later. I will
ensure that that is published in good time so that members of the
Committee can consider it alongside any amendments which they might
wish to propose when we come to that part of the Bill.
In relation to matters
affecting the powers of the Welsh Assembly Government, the hon. Lady
will already have heard me say that that relates to a later stage in
the Bill. She will have heard me give an undertaking that any
Government amendments will be tabled within the conventional
times for the Committee. I will endeavour to do better than that, and
aim to ensure that any Government amendments are tabled a week in
advance of the likely proceedings. Clearly, that will depend on the
progress that we make in Committee, but I hope that that is helpful to
the hon. Lady and to members of the
Committee.
Mr.
Jones:
On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. The
Minister referred again to the devolution of powers to the Welsh
Assembly Government, but I am perturbed that, as I understood the
briefing held by the Wales Office some three weeks ago, we are also
talking about the devolution of legislative competence to the Welsh
Assembly, which is rather more significant. Will the Minister please
explain whether the Government still intend to include devolutionary
powers in the
Bill?
The
Chairman:
That is simply a matter for debate and can be
dealt with during the consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to the
Minister for enlightening us on the community infrastructure
levy.
Clause 13Nationally
significant infrastructure projects:
general
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim
Fitzpatrick):
I beg to move amendment No. 96, in
clause 13, page 7, line 9, leave
out ‘storage of gas’ and insert ‘gas storage
facilities’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 114 to 121, 157 and
158.
I call
Mr.
Healey.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
That mistake is easily undertaken,
Mr. Illsley. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local
Government has carried the whole Government burden for this Bill so
far, with assistance from our right hon. and hon. Friends, so I am
pleased to be able to assist him today. It is a pleasure to see you
presiding over the Committee this morning, Mr. Illsley, and
I am sorry that you do not sound in the best of health. I have not yet
had the opportunity to welcome you and am happy to take the chance to
do so now. I hope that you will allow me a little licence to make some
general opening remarks in moving the amendment, as there are some
similarities between its drafting and that of a number of the other
Government amendments relating to clause 13.
The clause lists the type of
projects that we consider to be of national significance, subject to
the thresholds in clauses 14 to 26. Many of those replicate the
thresholds already in existing legislation. It is important to make it
clear, therefore, that the majority of projects that we define as
nationally significant are those which have already been decided by
Ministers. We have taken decision making away from local authorities
only in the small number of cases in which there is a strong case. In
most cases, given the national significance, we would have expected to
call those in anyway. For instance, as the UK’s indigenous gas
supplies decline and we become increasingly dependent on imports, gas
infrastructure will become much more
important to the security of our national energy supply. Failing to
modernise that infrastructure in a timely fashion might mean that we do
not have enough capacity to meet our energy
demands.
Equally,
however, we are also exploring options for devolving decision making in
relation to transport schemes that fall under the thresholds in the
Bill, such as local highway and local light rail schemes. The
Department for Transport will be discussing that with the Local
Government Association and other stakeholders over the coming months,
with the aim of identifying possible options for implementation. The
Government remain committed, as set out in “Strong
and Prosperous Communities—The Local
Government White Paper”, to ensuring that decision making is at
as local a level as possible, so that it can fully reflect local
circumstances and
needs.
The changes in
amendment No. 96 and the other Government amendments have come about
for three main reasons. First, they have come about as a result of
consultation responses to the planning White Paper. As members of the
Committee are aware, over 30,000 responses were received, and it has
therefore taken time to fully digest all the comments. Some of
the amendments, such as that on including an air freight threshold in
clause 19, are in direct response to that process.
Secondly, the changes have come
about because we are bringing together elements of legislation within
13 different Acts from the past 40 years. Due to the nature of creating
a single consent regime, it has taken us time to iron out the precise
terminology that must be used to ensure the correct legal
framework for the infrastructure planning commission to operate and to
ensure
consistency.
Thirdly,
the changes have come about to ensure that we have captured the
necessary geographical scope. For instance, the power to add a new type
of nationally significant project needs to extend to English waters as
well as to England itself. The infrastructure essential to the
UK’s response to climate change could relate to offshore
sources, and we cannot be certain that new, innovative technologies
would necessarily fall under the definitions in clause 13. It is,
therefore, a sensible precaution to ensure that new types of nationally
significant projects in English waters can be added when there is a
strong case to do
so.
The specifics of
amendments Nos. 115, 117, 119 and 120 change the types of gas storage
project that are nationally significant infrastructure projects and
would thus fall within the remit of the IPC. The amendments add
thresholds consisting of a specified working capacity and a maximum
flow rate. The alteration of facilities is covered, as well as their
initial creation or
use.
Amendments Nos.
96, 114, 116, 118, 121, 157 and 158 are drafting and definitional
amendments, which are needed as a result of the changes that I have
just outlined. Under the amendments, projects must satisfy one of two
thresholds to qualify for consideration by the IPC. Either the expected
working capacity should be at least 43 million standard cubic metres,
or the expected maximum flow rate should be at least 4.5 million
standard cubic metres per day. The starting point for the capacity test
was that it is roughly equivalent to 1 per cent. of the current storage
capacity
in Great Britain, which stood at 4,366 million standard cubic metres in
April 2007. The flow rate is based on 1 per cent. of the highest day
demand in Great Britain, which was 450 million standard cubic metres on
7 January 2003. We have discussed those figures with industry, and it
is generally
supportive.
Alterations
will need to meet one of the threshold tests in their own right, either
by an expected increase to the working capacity or an expected increase
to the maximum flow rate of the facilities by the relevant threshold
amount. The tests will ensure that a range of capacity projects can be
considered by the IPC in order to make certain that the market as a
whole can provide both endurance and deliverability
benefits.
Although we
already have some underground gas storage, more is needed. In the face
of declining North sea production of gas, the UK will increasingly rely
on having the infrastructure to store gas close to demand so that peaks
in the system can be met. Large gas storage projects benefit the UK
because they can store more gas and therefore contribute to the
endurance of supply. That is a well-established practice in countries
that do not have an indigenous source of gas to ensure a reliable
supply during periods of high demand, such as winter. Smaller storage
capacity projects are important because of their potential to deliver
to the market more quickly as they may be located closer to
demand. I commend the amendments to the
Committee.
Mrs.
Lait:
I must apologise because we have come to the techie
bit of the Bill. If I do not understand it, I am sure that the Minister
will take great delight in ensuring that I do by the end of my remarks.
I apologise if I sound less than
expert.
The Minister,
quite rightly, set the range of the Government amendments in context. I
would be grateful if he answered a number of points, either as we go
through or in general because many of them bring up the same issues. A
key element that I am most interested in is the functioning of the IPC.
As we go through each point, perhaps the Minister could give an
estimate of how many proposals he expects the IPC to have to deal with.
I know that the answer to that could be, “As long as a piece of
string, depending on changes in technology.” I accept that, but
on the basis of current technology and what is known at the moment, it
would be useful to have some indication of the number of proposals that
he expects the IPC to consider. He said that the changes under this
group of amendments would bring forward a range of proposals.
Approximately how many will that
be?
I am also
concerned about the development of better regulation, a cause that the
Government maintain that they are committed to. I apologise for
returning to an issue that I have raised before, but it is to this
group of amendments that it is most apposite. There have been many
complaints that in any planning application for an infrastructure
project, the applicant has to ask for a range of different consents.
That has happened because as technology has developed over the years,
separate legislation has been created to encourage the industry, such
as the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1995. God help me, I can
even remember the historical Pipelines Act 1962 being passed. The
Department of Trade and Industry and successive Departments have, in
essence, been responsible for the planning.
Under the amendments, the
Government are moving quite rightly towards legislating for all those
national-infrastructure-sized projects to come under a single regime,
and we support that. I am interested, however, in why the Government
have not taken the opportunity at the same time to repeal the
legislation as it affects national infrastructure projects because we
will potentially have parallel consent regimes. Questions could be
raised about the capacity of a scheme and whether it is a national
infrastructure project or not. I can see potential challenges in that
area. Still having the legislation in place will allow people to
challenge which consent regime a development should be operating under.
For the benefit of better regulation, why have the Government not taken
this opportunity to move the remaining powers that the Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has under the various Town
and Country Planning Acts, as these industries are now
mature?
10.45
am
Parallel
regimes for national infrastructure and smaller projects could lead to
challenges, delays, confusion and expense, which the Government do not
want. If they are committed to better regulation, as they maintain, I
suggest that they amend the Bill to abolish the Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform’s control over
planning under the current regime, and move it to the appropriate
Department.
My hon.
Friend the Minister for Local Government listed the Bill’s
impact assessment estimates of the number of applications over the next
10 years, calculated for each year and broken down by sector, which
gives an indication of what we expect to come forward in due
course.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but my point is
that many of the amendments specify criteria that were not in the Bill
as drafted. I am asking not just for the list in the regulatory impact
assessment, which was drawn up before the amendments were tabled, but
for details of any expansion of the numbers because of the widening of
the proposals.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I take note of the points made by the hon.
Lady and will deal with them as we go through the Bill. We have
provided a list, which shows where we expect to be.
Clauses 27 and 29 and the
Government amendments specify the different consent regimes that will
be disapplied, but only in respect of nationally significant
infrastructure projects and within the context of the devolution
settlements. We will discuss the matter under part 4 of the
Bill.
We are retaining
existing regimes in some areas because they are needed for
infrastructure projects that are not nationally significant and would
be appropriate to be applied by the relevant Administration or devolved
Administration. The Bill clearly sets out the
projects that are over the thresholds required for the new regime, as
the hon. Lady will see when we come to the subsequent Government
amendments and to parts 3 and 4 of the
Bill.
Amendment
agreed
to.
‘(ca) the
construction or alteration of an LNG
facility;
(cb) the construction
or alteration of a gas reception
facility;’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments Nos. 155, 156 and 159.
Government new clause
1—LNG
facilities.
Government
new clause 2—Gas reception
facilities
.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The amendments bring applications for
liquefied natural gas and gas reception facilities within the remit of
the IPC when they are in England. Thresholds for the liquefied natural
gas facilities that are to be governed by the IPC are set at the levels
that I have already outlined for gas storage facilities—that is,
that the expected working capacity is at least 43 million standard
cubic metres or the expected maximum flow rate is at least 4.5 million
standard cubic metres per day. LNG facilities could meet either one of
those thresholds; however, gas reception facilities do not store gas,
so only the maximum flow rate threshold would apply to determine when
development consent for that type of facility will be decided by the
IPC.
When a proposed
alteration to liquefied natural gas and gas reception facilities meets
the applicable threshold test in its own right, that alteration will
require development consent from the commission, which means that
proposals to improve existing infrastructure projects significantly
will also fall under the new regime.
I have already explained why
the Government believe that decisions on gas supplies should be taken
at national level. I commend the amendments to the
Committee.
Amendment
agreed
to.
‘the construction of a
highway’
and insert
‘highway-related
development’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 87, in
clause 18, page 9, leave out line
43.
Clause 18 stand
part.
Government new
clause
7—Highways.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We hope that the new clause will replace
clause 18, which sets out the highways thresholds. It provides a fuller
definition of what types of highway development would fall within the
remit of the IPC to determine. It is designed to ensure that the new
regime captures the construction, improvement or
alteration of the country’s strategic road network—the
network run by the Highways Agency and for which the Secretary of State
for Transport is the highway authority. Government
amendment No. 98 is consequential to that
change.
I
shall explain why these projects are so nationally significant and it
is so vital that the thresholds capture them. In doing so, I hope also
to address amendment No. 87, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe, which would delete trunk roads from clause 18.
I hope that in explaining what we are doing with clause 18, I will
convince him of the importance of including trunk roads within the
scope of the new regime and so persuade him not to press his amendment
to a vote.
The network
consists of the main national network of motorways and major roads in
England which link our cities, areas of population, ports and airports.
Most motorways and some A roads are strategic roads, also referred to
as trunk roads. The proposal will maintain the current level of
national decision making, but with the IPC carrying out the role
instead of Ministers. Those roads are essential to the economy and
economic prosperity of the country. They allow people and goods to move
around the country quickly and efficiently, and it is essential that
they are kept in good condition to contribute to the safety, efficiency
and comfort of our journeys, reduce vehicle wear and tear, and minimise
costs to the
taxpayer.
It is
certainly true that some of the projects that we might carry out on
this network are small, but the ability of road links and junctions to
deal with traffic flow can impose constraints across the entire length
of major roads and across the network as a whole. It is worth noting in
this context that one of the key conclusions of the Eddington study was
that investment targeted on pinch points and bottlenecks in the
strategic road network could deliver some of the highest returns for
growth. As such, it might be misleading to equate the physical size of
a project with its potential impact on the network and its potential
national significance. A single junction improvement can deliver
significant benefits across a wider area of the network.
I believe that hon. Members
will agree that works on our strategic road network need to be planned
and considered holistically at national level. I therefore commend
amendment No. 98 and new clause 7 to the
Committee.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining what he
is trying to do. Does he recall the evidence by the chairman of the
Local Government Association and his concern, which we share, about the
sheer number of national infrastructure plans that may go forward to
the IPC because of the definition of trunk roads? I do not for a moment
condemn anyone to slow roads. I use the A21, which is known
affectionately as the snail trail. It has been known as that for a long
time. I would be happy to have it speeded up, but I am equally
conscious that many road proposals are exceedingly contentious and
would remain so even under a national policy statement.
I agree with the LGA that the
IPC could operate much more effectively and with fewer delays if it was
possible for local authorities to continue to maintain
their role on trunk roads, particularly the smaller and less well used
ones. That needs to be looked at much more closely, because I know how
exasperating it is trying to get a bypass even, having been closely
involved in the consultation on the A259 and knowing how the National
Trust frustrated that particular improvement to the road
system.
Any road will
be contentious. The national policy statement on roads will be
contentious. It will take an enormous length of time, and
pre-application inquiries and pre-inquiry hearings could reduce some of
the time taken to develop those road schemes. I cannot understand why
the definition of a trunk road is drawn so widely. If it does clog up
the IPC, as one suspects it might, the argument for speed
disappears.
I
apologise if the Minister has explained why footpaths are included. I
understand that there is a valid reason for it, but most people have
looked at that measure with a degree of scepticism and horror. It would
be appreciated if he could explain that in more detail.
May I also ask the Minister
about the implications for cross-border roads, because the measure
refers specifically to England? Thinking of Scotland in particular, the
M6 leads into the M74. If they do not link up and miss by a yard or a
metre, we have a small problem. What proposals are there to ensure that
the Scottish body politic, in all its variety, is properly consulted to
ensure that any cross-border roads that are regarded as trunk roads or
motorways can progress more speedily? I should be grateful for answers
to those
questions.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
(Lab): Following on from hon. Lady’s comments, two
issues still concern me. I recognise that the Government are trying to
be helpful in filing down to some extent those roads that will be dealt
with by the new IPC process and those that will go through the existing
planning process. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the discussions
to be held with the LGA about that. It would help to know the scope of
those negotiations and when we might hear their
results.
As the hon.
Lady said, one of the issues that emerged from our hearings was the
view of the LGA. It thought that the applications to be dealt with by
the IPC should be in single figures. The difference between its
understanding of what the figures might be and the Minister’s
understanding are probably almost totally down to the inclusion of
trunk roads in that process. Has my hon. Friend any idea of the
percentage of applications that the IPC will handle in a year which
will fall under the definition set out in new clause
7?
Finally, there are
proposals to improve, expand and develop trunk roads where the impact
is limited to a particular area. Where the impact is pretty
substantial, it can affect the rest of the transport arrangements for
that area. The new integrated transport authority for the area and the
local council may have major concerns about how those proposals link to
other transport proposals, regeneration schemes and so on in the area,
although the proposals may have a very limited impact in terms of
national consequences for the road network between our towns and
cities. Where there was a proposal to improve a trunk road which had
just local
consequences, would that still have to go through the IPC, or could it
be dealt with by the existing planning
processes?
11
am
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): I support what the hon.
Gentleman and my hon. Friend said. The LGA made a very good point when
it said:
“Groups of councils
working together would also be best placed to make decisions about the
infrastructure needed to support and grow their economies—in
keeping with the spirit of the Government’s sub-national
review.”
How does the
Minister feel that this matter dovetails with those concerns? Coming
from Newbury, perhaps I know better than anyone how local roads have to
fit in with roads of national strategic importance. There is much
concern in local government about the potential loss of control when
local roads connect with important national strategic
routes.
Mr.
Jones:
I want to echo my hon. Friends’ points. In
particular, I want to raise the question of cross-border roads.
Government new clause 7 relates entirely to highways in England.
Cross-border issues, cross-border public services and cross-border
roads are matters of significant interest in my part of the world. The
current improvement of the link between the A5117 and the M56 has
engaged politicians on both sides of the border for many years. The
concern is that while the proposals aim to streamline and speed up the
process of consents, there is silence on cross-border routes. Will the
Minister explain what regime will apply for important cross-border
routes and new road schemes, particularly in
Wales?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I will respond to the questions raised by
Opposition Members collectively because they are similar. There are
also some similarities with my hon. Friend’s points.
We are not giving the IPC the
ability to make decisions on local authority trunk roads, only on those
roads for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority. We
have worked out the case loads and they are outlined in the impact
assessment. We will resource the IPC appropriately and have no reason
to deviate from the case
estimates.
On
cross-border roads, roads and rail are devolved matters in Scotland and
that will continue. As with other similar matters, we will consult
carefully with the devolved Administrations to ensure that motorways
join up at the right places, as described by the hon.
Lady.
Mr.
Jones:
It seems that the streamlining process proposed by
the Bill will not apply to cross-border routes. Is that
correct?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
It is fair to say that in a number of areas
where there are cross-border elements, we are not deviating from the
devolution settlement. In areas where responsibility has been devolved,
that will continue. We are not confusing the situation, but maintaining
that it will continue to stand as it does at the
moment.
Mrs.
Lait:
That begs the question of whether the devolved
Administrations have the same speed of decision making as the IPC will
have.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Obviously we will be in dialogue with the
devolved Administrations. Things do not go on in Westminster, Cardiff
or Edinburgh that are not acknowledged.
Discussions will take place and arrangements will be made to ensure
that we work as effectively and creatively as possible. In general
terms, the devolution settlement has worked well. It is our contention
that by ensuring that we do not deviate from it, or tamper with it, it
will continue to work
well.
On local
authority trunk roads, it is our expectation that half the applications
will be under the single commissioner route because of their nature and
size. That takes me on to cycle tracks and footpaths, which were raised
by the hon. Lady. I did not mention those in my initial remarks, but we
had an informal discussion about them the last time the Committee met,
after business had closed. I understand her concerns and questions
about how that might look like a strange addition for the IPC. However,
there are instances where cycle tracks and footpaths are closely
connected to strategic road network developments and are part of the
current consent regime under which decisions are taken by the Secretary
of State. Those consents are mostly used in connection with a wider
development to a main carriageway. However, there are occasional
examples in which they are used in
isolation.
For
instance, the Highways Agency has started work to provide a safe means
of travel on the A38 between Dobwalls and Doublebois, which is
pronounced “double boys.” It is a single carriageway with
hedges and embankments close to the road. No work is being carried out
on the carriageway itself, but a new segregated footpath and cycleway
are being created. That will help to relieve congestion on the A38 and
deliver general safety benefits to cyclists and other road users. It
will also connect the industrial area of Doublebois to the town of
Liskeard for pedestrians and cyclists. For the purposes of establishing
the IPC now, we should ensure that the consent regime is not
fragmented.
In respect
of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe, and of the impact of amendments on a number of
cases and the discussions with the Local Government Association, the
Government amendments would clarify the drafting to ensure that we
capture the appropriate procedures planned for in the impact
assessment. In that instance, there is no change to the numbers
estimated within the
assessment.
In keeping
with the White Paper commitment, as my hon. Friend said and I mentioned
in my introductory remarks to the original amendments in clause 13, the
Department for Transport is investigating the potential to devolve
consent powers, under the 1980 Highways Act, to local authorities. He
asked when that will be consulted on. It will be part of the
sub-national review consultation, which is due out in mid-February. We
will have to legislate as a result of that, in due course, but those
discussions will start shortly. We will flag our intention to engage in
those matters to the LGA, which is clearly keen, as we heard from its
evidence last week.
In
conclusion and for the sake of clarification, the 25 schemes are those
currently decided by the Secretary of State, not local authorities.
Many of them are, however, likely to link up with local authority
roads.
Amendment
agreed to.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 99, in
clause 13, page 7, line 12, leave
out ‘extension’ and insert
‘alteration’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 125, 153 and
154
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Amendments Nos. 99 and 125 change the
airports threshold to ensure that it is wide enough to capture any type
of airport development that creates additional capacity, either as a
new build or as an alteration to an existing site, by at least 10
million passengers per year, or 10,000 air transport movements per year
in relation to
freight.
Amendments
Nos. 153 and 154 are drafting amendments needed as a consequence of
amendment No. 125, which is an important change in response to the
consultation on the planning White Paper. It will ensure that the new
regime captures all those airport projects that are likely to have
nationally significant
benefits.
Hon. Members
will have noted that the threshold for passenger transport has been
raised from 5 million, as given in the planning White Paper. That
reflects the responses to the White Paper, which indicated that the
proposed threshold of 5 million was inadequate. The new threshold of 10
million passengers per year captures the additional airport capacity
supported by the air transport White Paper. The new freight thresholds
reflect the differences in types of airport
development.
Given the
differences in sizes and types of airports, and their scope for future
development, we believe that those thresholds set a much clearer policy
on the types of airport development that constitute a nationally
significant infrastructure
project.
Mrs.
Lait:
I welcome the changes, because they were ones that
we advocated on Second Reading to take account of air freight, and
sensible points on them were made by the British Chambers of Commerce
and the CBI. Will the Minister give us an idea of the size of an
airport that deals with 5 million passengers and that element of
freight, as I am completely non-technical on that matter? Are we
talking about an airport the size of Manchester or Luton—we
cannot talk about Scottish airports because that is a matter entirely
for Scotland? Understanding what size of airport we are talking about
would give us some grasp of the issue.
One thing that is
interesting—I would be grateful for the Minister’s
comments on it—is that Government amendment No. 125 defines an
alteration in subsection 19(5)(a) as “a runway”, which is
understandable, but in paragraph (b) it is defined as “a
building” and in paragraph (c) as
“a radar or radio mast, antenna,
or other apparatus at the airport.”
I have great difficulty understanding why
those are regarded as nationally significant if they are not already in
the planning regime. Also, “a building” is a possible
alteration. That might be a new freight or passenger terminal, but
could be a hut for the security men. Can we have a bit of clarification
on that?
I am sure that the Minister has
at his fingertips the number of expected applications, but will there
be any increase in the number of airports that have to apply under the
change of definition? I am conscious that one of the longest and best
runways in the country is sited at what used to be RAF Manston and know
that there is some thought that the facilities there could be extended
into a more effective airport. Do the Minister and the Department have
in mind the development of an airport there or anywhere else that would
be regarded as potentially coming within those
criteria?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am happy to supply the information that the
hon. Lady requests, certainly with regard to her first two points. The
Bill threshold infrastructure is infrastructure capable of providing
services for air passenger transport services for at least 10 million
passengers per year. To give her an idea of the scale, the terminal at
London Luton was originally designed for 5 million passengers per year
and in 2006 handled more than 9 million, as did Birmingham. Manchester
handled about 22 million passengers per year, Heathrow handled 67
million, Gatwick handled 34 million and Stansted handled 24 million. I
hope that that gives her an idea of air passenger numbers.
To give an idea of the scale of
air transport movements for cargo aircraft, that would represent
roughly a 50 per cent. increase in cargo transport at East Midlands
airport, which is the No. 1 UK cargo airport, or roughly a doubling of
the cargo traffic at Stansted, which is key for the London area. That
demonstrates that we are talking about substantial increases. With
regard to the list and the impact assessment, we are confident that we
have accurately assessed what we expect to come forward in the next 10
years. For aviation, it says that there will be one airport every 10
years, and one would imagine that if the Heathrow consultation were to
get approval and go through the appropriate planning regime, that would
be one airport that might well be within those
figures.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the Minister for that elucidation.
I am being rather selfish and wonder whether Biggin Hill, which does
quite a bit of freight air transport movement, could ever come within
the freight transport bounds. I suspect that the answer is probably no,
but my constituents would be delighted to hear from the
Minister.
11.15
am
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The hon. Lady tempts me to engage in
crystal-ball gazing by answering her question. No one is in a position
to say never, but the figures that I gave should reassure her
constituents that we are talking about a huge increase compared with what goes through Biggin Hill currently. It is significant even for airports
within the present configuration, whether they are for passengers or
freight.
In respect of
antennae on buildings, what matters is how much extra capacity the
change allows over the threshold. Those elements may have an impact on
the capacity threshold. Sometimes small changes allow very large
increases in capacity, and in respect of radar and antennae there might
be command and control facilities. It is appropriate to include them
because of the impact they may have in due
course.
Amendment
agreed to.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 13, page 7, line 13, leave
out ‘extension’ and insert
‘alteration’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendment No.
126.
Amendment No. 79,
in clause 20, page 10, line 23, leave out
‘or
extended’.
Government
amendment No.
128.
Amendment No. 80,
in
clause 20, page 10, line 25, at
end insert—
‘(1A) The
extension of harbour facilities is within section 13(1)(g) only if the
harbour facilities will (when extended) be capable of handling the
embarkation or disembarkation of at least the relevant quantity of
material per year in addition to their existing
capacity.’.
Amendment
No. 81, in clause 20, page 10, line 27,
leave out ‘500,000’ and insert
‘250,000’.
Amendment
No. 82, in clause 20, page 10, line 28,
leave out ‘250,000’ and insert
‘150,000’.
Government
amendment No.
129.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Amendments Nos. 100, 126 and 128, and
amendment No. 127 in another group, will ensure that the IPC can
consider significant alterations to a harbour as long as they increase
a harbour’s capacity by the thresholds set out in clause 20.
With similar amendments to other clauses in part 3, they will make the
terminology used consistent with the rest of the Bill. It also applies
to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend,
East, which we may discuss later.
In respect of amendment No.
129, after careful consideration of the responses to consultation, the
Government felt that although the threshold we set is appropriate there
is a case for including an additional split threshold, given the types
of development that are proposed for harbours. The thresholds we set
for those developments are based on the potential impact that a port
facility of that size could have on the national rail and road
infrastructure, as well as its importance to the national
economy.
However,
hon. Members will be aware that port developments are often mixed-mode
developments consisting of extensions or upgrades to facilities for
different types of cargo. We therefore need to ensure that applications
for development consent that seek to increase a port’s ability
to handle container, ro-ro and other cargo ships fall to the IPC to
determine where together they are nationally significant.
The amendment introduces a
formula that specifies that if the proposed increases in capacity
divided by the relevant threshold and then added together equal one or
more, the proposed development is nationally significant. For example,
a proposed development that would create a port capable of handling 350
TEUs—20-foot equivalent units—from container ships,
200,000 units from ro-ro ships and 4.5 million tonnes from other cargo
ships, would clearly be a significant project but would not fall to the
commission to determine without the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 81 and 82,
tabled by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, would reduce
the thresholds at which a harbour project would be considered by the
IPC and is neither necessary nor
appropriate. In its response to the planning White Paper, the United
Kingdom Major Ports Group suggested reducing our proposed thresholds as
suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but the thresholds set out in clause
20—500,000 TEU for container ships, 250,000 units for ro-ro
ships and 5 million tonnes for other cargo—were based on careful
analysis of recent port applications and their potential
impact.
Most of the
recent major applications have been for container ships—for
example, that of London Gateway for 3.5 million TEU, Felixstowe South
for 1.65 million, Bathside for 1.5 million and Teesport for 1.5 million
are all well above the 500,000 TEU threshold. Other significant harbour
developments, such as Bristol, are also expected to be above that
threshold. To give some idea of context, 500,000 TEU equates to about
300,000 heavy goods vehicle movements per annum in and out. In relation
to ro-ro ships, 250,000 units equates to roughly the same number of HGV
movements. Given that a development of that scale almost anywhere is
likely to raise significant issues of road and/or rail capacity, we
believe that this is the right level at which a harbour project
should be considered nationally significant. I therefore commend
Government amendments Nos. 100 and 126 to 129 to the
Committee.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to
speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for
Rochford and Southend, East. I do not know whether hon. Members know
that he is celebrating the birth of a son and has taken paternity
leave. I am sure that they would all wish to join me in sending
him and his wife our congratulations, but it means that I have had to
pick up yet another techie subject.
I am grateful to the Minister
for his explanation on harbours. We had some very convincing evidence
from the ports and harbours associations and Associated British Ports
on the need for change in what is seen as a nationally significant
project. I was glad to see that the Minister had picked up my hon.
Friend’s amendment to remove the extension to ports. As we are
all aware, there has not been, and is not expected to be, a huge rush
of applications for new ports of national significance. However, we
remain a trading nation. The Prime Minister has been in China and India
trying to drum up further trade. Nobody would argue with that. We
therefore need efficient and effective ports that can handle
the most advanced types of ships and containers of whatever sort so
that our trade can be dealt with efficiently and
effectively.
The major
concern that remains is the need to reduce the threshold sizes for
facilities for container ships and ro-ro ships in new ports.
The Government’s amendments do not really address that, whereas
my hon. Friend’s amendments are designed to facilitate that
reduction in threshold sizes. We must do what we can to facilitate our
ports and harbours, and I would be grateful if the Minister could have
another think about that and perhaps have a further discussion with the
ports and harbours associations to see whether some sensible compromise
could be worked
out.
Government
amendment No. 129 includes a formula for where a port handles more than
one ship. Again, Associated British Ports comment that the proposed
development could, in theory, be for containers plus ro-ro, in which
case it might do some good. However, I would expect most such
developments to be either containers or ro-ro, so the effect is likely
to be very limited. It is not a substitute for addressing the threshold
issue. I should be grateful if the Minister could undertake to have
some further discussions on that.
I return briefly to the
Scottish issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West will tell me
whether Wales is affected in the same way. I am very conscious of the
fact that this measure applies only to England and Wales, yet we are
talking about infrastructure ports that are adjacent to England and
Wales and waters that are adjacent to England and Wales. While there
are clear definitions for territorial waters, I am sure that the
Minister will know that there has long been a huge dispute about
whether Scotland’s oil is Scotland’s oil. Much of that
argument depends on the definition of a territorial
water.
While I am sure
that the Minister will assure me that he has no intention of disturbing
the devolution settlement, he may have noticed that there has been a
change of Government in Edinburgh, and a Sewell motion may not perhaps
be the solution to any discussions about reports on harbour facilities
adjacent to Scotland. If he would clarify and reassure us that there
will not be a major constitutional issue over the development of ports
and harbours on the Scottish-English border, I, for one, would be very
grateful.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
On behalf of the whole Committee, I am
grateful that the hon. Lady has shared the good news of the hon. Member
for Rochford and Southend, East with us. I cannot imagine that anyone
in the room would not rather be supping champagne with him now than
working in Committee. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr.
Illsley, I got that the wrong way around. Having said that, I am sure
that the hon. Lady will convey to the hon. Member for Rochford and
Southend, East all our very best
wishes.
By asking me
whether I can assure her that there will not be any constitutional
dispute between London and Edinburgh, the hon. Lady again tempts me to
engage in crystal ball-gazing. I am grateful that she said that the
Scottish oil question had not passed me by in the past 30 years, which
demonstrates a generosity of spirit for which she is famous. I know
that it is a bit of a mantra, or it certainly will appear to be by the
end of parts 3 and 4, but we are not doing anything to unsettle the
devolution arrangements as they apply at the moment. In this instance,
that is why there is a distinction between England, Wales and
Scotland.
The hon.
Lady’s substantive point was about the evidence given by the UK
Major Ports Group and Associated British Ports. Both are organisations
for which we have high regard, and we listened carefully to what they
had to say about the thresholds. However, the analysis and modelling
done by the Department for Transport indicate that we have set the
appropriate thresholds. Were such important organisations to come
forward with more hard evidence, we would never refuse to listen to
them. We are confident, however, that the assessments that we have made
and the thresholds that we have set are appropriate, so I would not
want to give the hon. Lady false hope that we are likely to
change them. I have discussed the matter with officials outside the
Committee to ensure that we have double-checked our figures. We are
confident that they are absolutely
accurate.
Mrs.
Lait:
While I am sure that the officials are very
confident of their figures, I wonder whether the two organisations have
agreed those
figures?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I think that it was clear from their evidence
that they were suggesting a different figure. They did not, however,
furnish evidence, other than that their judgment and assessment was
that their figure would be better. I understand that, given that they
represent the industry. The industry would want to see as many ports as
possible come within the scope of the IPC, because it agrees that it
will be a better arrangement and will make life simpler. Equally, there
is a balance to strike. Much of the previous discussion with my hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and the Local Government
Association concerned the fact that we do not want unnecessarily to
take responsibility for planning decisions away from local authorities
where it is appropriate for them to have
it.
Under later
clauses in the Bill, there are powers to come back to the matter and
make alterations in future when times have changed and different
factors apply. At this point in time, however, we are comfortable with
the thresholds that we have set. In respect of the discussions with
both the UK Major Ports Group and Associated British Ports, we do not
dispute the figures. The figures are accurate, so it is a judgment
call.
I am grateful to
the hon. Lady for raising the amendments tabled in the name of the
Member for Rochford and Southend, East, but I hope that with the
explanation that I have been able to furnish, she would feel able to
withdraw them on his behalf. Otherwise I would have to ask my hon.
Friends to oppose the
amendments.
The
Chairman:
For the benefit of the Committee, those
amendments are available only for debate. They have not been moved. The
amendment under discussion is Government amendment No.
100.
Amendment
agreed
to.
11.30
am
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 101, in
clause 13, page 7, line 15, after
‘construction’ insert ‘or
alteration’.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The amendment will ensure that the IPC can
consider significant alterations to a rail freight interchange as long
as the land in which it is situated is increased by at least 60
hectares. Along with amendments to other clauses in part 3, it will
make the terminology used consistent with the rest of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
The amendment seems very sensible and the scale of
the land is sensible. This is possibly repetitious, but the only
comment that I have to make concerns whether any cross-border impact
will result. There could be issues due to the frequency of trains for
a new or expanded interchange or the use of tracks by trains
from Scotland. It does not take much imagination to see why I am asking
the
question.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We do not anticipate that that is likely
because of the size of the rail interchange that would have to be
constructed before it falls within the scope of the IPC. Again, the
devolution settlement is not affected. Were there to be a
cross-border development, there would have to be discussions between
the appropriate authorities. However, the amendments are relatively
straightforward, given the size of the
developments.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 102, in
clause 13, page 7, line 16, leave
out ‘extension’ and insert
‘alteration’.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The amendments clarify that an alteration to
an existing dam or reservoir, where it meets the specified thresholds,
will constitute a nationally significant project under the Bill. Along
with amendments to other clauses in part 3, this will make the
terminology used consistent with the rest of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
I have two simple questions. First, does this change
envisage any increase in the number of dams that will potentially be
created? Secondly—dare I say it—given the amount of rain
that falls on the borders, what will the impact be on the Scottish
devolution
settlement?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
In the mind of the Scottish National party,
there is a dispute over Scottish oil. I am sorry that the hon. Member
for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not here to answer on behalf of the
nationalists. I am sorry, but I am not going to get into a dispute
about whose rain it is. I can advise the hon. Lady that we do not
anticipate any increase in the number of
dams.
Mr.
Benyon:
This question is very much in the line of my
previous one concerning highways. I am aware of the delays in getting
major dam and reservoir projects under way. There is one to the north
of my constituency in Oxfordshire that has taken years and years to get
under way. I will give the Minister a parallel problem. A well-known
offshore wind farm down the Thames estuary was given consent under the
Electricity Act 1989, but was delayed for many years by the local
authority not giving permission for a sub-station. What will happen
under the Bill if a major reservoir project is given the go-ahead, but
local authorities delay the project through an application to reroute
roads or footpaths or other matters that have been raised? How will the
Bill speed up the process while also involving local people, without
holding back infrastructure projects as has been the case in the past?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue at the
heart of the Bill. As he has outlined, sometimes problems occur with
projects that are regarded as essential in the national interest. We
heard a number of
examples in the evidence sessions two weeks ago, when several witnesses
gave evidence of problems in their sector of the
industry.
As we
discussed earlier, the list of consents in clauses 27 and 29, which
could cause the delays to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will be
disapplied in response to nationally significant infrastructure
projects. The outline consultation arrangements ably articulated by my
hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government are a genuine improvement
for the local communities and the proposed time frame will
ensure that matters are dealt with more expeditiously. We are confident
that the consultation, the applications and the disapplications of the
various consent regimes will deal with exactly the kinds of problems
raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs.
Lait:
The Minister talked about dealing with the
applications expeditiously, which leads me to point out that analysis
of the effect of flood risk on local populations surrounding a dam
should be made available to insurers, which is not the case at present.
Will the Minister insist that that information will be made available
under the new procedures for such an
application?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
If you will forgive me, Mr.
Illsley, the hon. Lady’s question has caught me unawares, as I
have no insight into the requirements or the procedures that apply in
respect of insurance policies and dams. If she will allow me to do so,
I will take note of her question and come back to her at an appropriate
time in Committee.
Amendment agreed
to.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 103, in
clause 13, page 7, line 18, after
‘construction’ insert ‘or
alteration’.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The amendments clarify that an alteration to
a waste water treatment plant would constitute a nationally significant
project as long as it is expected to increase the plant’s
capacity by a population equivalent of 150,000. With similar amendments
to other clauses in part 3, it will make the terminology used
consistent with the rest of the Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
I will not detain the Committee, but waste water is
highly controversial. If the plants are to be regarded as
infrastructure projects, will waste water treatment proposals be
required to comply with European
legislation?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I can assure the hon. Lady that if the
European legislation applies now it will also apply
then.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I beg to move amendment
No. 161, in
clause 13, page 7, line 19, leave
out paragraph
(m).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments Nos. 104, 141 and
142.
Clause 26 stand
part.
Dan
Rogerson:
I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr.
Illsley, and hope that our deliberations are not adding to any
discomfort that your cold may be causing
you.
I speak in favour
of amendment No. 161, which focuses on the inclusion of hazardous waste
facilities in the Bill. We could have this debate on many other types
of nationally significant infrastructure projects, which are included,
but this one is especially significant given the types of hazardous
waste that we could be discussing.
I note that the hon. Member for
Copeland, who has taken a long interest in the issues of radioactive
waste and the future of the nuclear industry, is in his place.
Clearly, members of the public watching our
deliberations will have those sorts of facilities in mind, as the
provisions refer to deep storage, for example, which tends to imply
that sort of development.
I understand that the
Government have said publicly—the Minister may correct
me—that they would be interested in exploring the sort of
approach taken in other countries whereby communities volunteer, if
that is the right phrase, to explore the idea of a hazardous waste
facility in their area, particularly in relation to radioactive waste.
That approach allows the community to debate what potential benefits
might come to them as part of the investment in the local economy and
facilities.
However,
by taking such a decision away and handing it over to the IPC, our
process will be different and will give far less scope for the local
community, represented by its local authority, to consider the impact
of the facility on the area, ways in which that impact could be
lessened and other benefits that might be offered to the local
community for taking that
on.
In part 7 we will
discuss provisions that will be included when development consent is
granted, including the possibility of causing a developer to fund other
developments in a local area consequent on that development, and I am
sure that we will explore that later. However, were that process to be
in the hands of a local authority when considering an application, it
strikes me that the local authority would very much have the needs of
that community and the history of the local situation at heart and
would therefore be better placed to argue for such benefits than the
IPC.
Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Does my hon.
Friend agree with me that a local community would be much more likely
to want to help the delivery of the Government’s agenda with
regard to identifying a site for nuclear waste, for instance, if it
felt that it was central to that process instead of the decision being
taken away and handed to the commission?
Dan
Rogerson:
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. If
such a process were to take place, the hope would be, as the Government
have discussed, that there would be a genuine engagement with that
community about what might be on offer and what the benefits might be.
He is absolutely right to say that the fact that the IPC is
considering the proposal might arouse a healthy dose of
suspicion, so that is worth consideration.
I also note that the other
amendments in the group seek to expand the definition of hazardous
waste facilities, and also look at thresholds in relation to future
development. Therefore, if permission has been granted for a facility
of a particular size, there are provisions here for it to be expanded.
Again, that would take all the cards away from the hands of the local
community because, once something has been provided for and constructed
in an area, provisions in the Bill would allow it to be extended
considerably. Local communities will be particularly concerned about
that type of facility being handled as part of that process, so I will
be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the potential
conflict between a sort of voluntary approach for local communities to
come forward and the provisions of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
I hope that the Minister will have enough of an
opportunity to explain what the amendments mean, as a number of us are
having difficulty grasping it because they appear to be so wide. On the
one hand we are talking about nuclear waste facilities and on the
other, about the transport of soil from a contaminated area, such as
the Olympic site, which would easily fall within the terms of the
proposals as I understand them. It appears to include everything in
between. If the Government could clarify whether they truly mean
everything from spoiled earth to nuclear waste, it would be very
helpful. I suspect that we will return to that because it is
worrying.
11.45
am
The
Environmental Services Association has said that, owing to requirements
for changes in how we deal with hazardous waste, there will be
thousands of applications in future years because we will no longer
have landfill. To take just one small exercise, I point out that East
Sussex is nearly through the system in getting full planning permission
for an incinerator at Newhaven, from which the town will get
electricity. It has taken some 10 years, because it took eight years to
get the waste management plan through the system; that is for dealing
with waste in just one county. If it takes eight years to get a local
county waste management plan through, I can just imagine how long it
will take to get a national waste management plan, and it has taken two
years to get the planning permission just for the county. That is
dealing with 236,000 tonnes of waste, which comes well
within the definition, as I understand it, of a national
infrastructure project. I cannot believe that the Government truly wish
the IPC to deal with the equivalent of one county’s waste for
every planning application, so I hope very much that there will be
thorough clarification of what the Government mean by “hazardous
waste” here.
We also need, dare I say, to
talk about the Scottish question. I notice from a piece in Planning
Daily that the Scottish Government have come up with proposals for
six nuclear waste stores. Whether they expect those to be deep facility
waste stores is not entirely clear, but we could well find that, if
they can get their six waste facility stores, there could be an
agreement that Sellafield and deep waste storage may not be the
solution to England’s problems. There is a Scottish element that
we need to address clearly on this matter. If the definition of
hazardous waste could be clarified, many of us would be reassured, and
we may not have to return to
it.
Mr.
Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): I, too, would like to discuss
issues broadly relating to the definition of
hazardous waste. The hon. Member for North Cornwall
made some interesting and persuasive arguments on behalf of the Liberal
Democrats and I would not wish to take too much issue with
them.
I begin by
declaring an interest with regard to my constituency as Member for
Copeland, which contains Sellafield. I was biting my tongue in the
sitting the other day when the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon
was talking about the
constituency.
Mr.
Reed:
I was in the Parliamentary Private Secretary chair
at the time. I caution all members of the Committee and everyone in the
country against assuming that my constituency, let alone Sellafield,
will be the final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste in
this country. In addition to that interest, I declare that I am a
former employee of Nirex and, more importantly, that I worked very hard
alongside the Foreign Secretary to abolish that organisation. Other
interests with regard to the nuclear industry number
17,000——namely, the jobs that rely upon it in west
Cumbria.
Ministers
will be aware that the Government have made progress on radioactive
waste management matters over the past three years, particularly on the
disposal of higher activity radioactive wastes, under the aegis of the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM for short. CoRWM
recently submitted a series of 15 recommendations to the Government
about the process of taking forward radioactive waste and management
safely. In their response, the Government
said:
“the UK should look
to develop partnership arrangements, linked to appropriate involvement
and benefit packages, with local authorities/communities as a means of
securing facility
siting.”
More
importantly, the Government
said:
“The
circumstances surrounding the geological disposal of higher activity
radioactive wastes are
unique.”
We should bear
that in mind.
I would
like the Minister to address a very specific question, but not
necessarily immediately. I do not assume that he has a crystal ball.
Does the definition of “hazardous waste” include
radioactive waste? Do the Government believe that CoRWM’s
recommendations are in any way contravened by the Bill? Does he believe
that the concept of volunteerism, which is the very essence and basis of
a satisfactory resolution to radioactive waste management issues, is
compromised by the Bill? Has CoRWM been consulted about the Bill? Will
the Minister give me and other interested Members assurances that the
principle of voluntarism is in no way weakened by the provisions of the
Bill, with regard to finding a policy solution to radioactive waste
management?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
As well as responding to the concerns of hon.
Members in respect of the amendment and of clause 26 standing part of
the Bill, I wish to speak to Government amendments Nos. 104, 141 and
142.
On the inclusion
of hazardous waste facilities in the Bill, let me reassure the hon.
Member for North Cornwall and other colleagues that we intend that the
commission will deal with hazardous waste facilities that are
nationally significant and serve the national need only. To illustrate
that, there are currently only six hazardous waste landfills and one
deep storage facility in the UK that exceed the 100,000 tonnes per
annum threshold. I hope that most hon. Members will recognise such
major facilities serve a national need and warrant consideration at
national rather than local level. Similarly, there are only two
commercially operated high temperature incinerators in the UK, both of
which exceed the 30,000 tonne per annum threshold. Both serve a
national need and I suggest that any similar treatment plant would also
do so. We have no intention of taking decision-making powers away from
local authorities, except in the most significant projects, where there
is a clear case for national decision
making.
Tom
Brake:
Will the Minister confirm whether nuclear storage
facilities, to which we are all referring, will automatically fall into
the category that the commission will deal
with?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I will come to that issue when I deal with
the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, if the
hon. Gentleman will allow me. I hope that will cover the
question.
The sort of
hazardous waste projects that the Bill will capture are of a scale and
complexity that will almost inevitably have national benefits or
impacts that go far beyond the immediate impact on local communities.
As such, it would not have been unusual for such projects to be called
in for decision by the Secretary of State in the past. In addition, as
the Minister for Local Government described in our debates on parts 1
and 2 of the Bill and as we have mentioned today, under the new system
there will be strengthened consultation requirements. Those apply at
the policy development stage in relation to national policy statements
and at the project development stage. That will be done before an
application is submitted to the IPC and at its examination. It is also
worth mentioning that because hazardous waste has the potential to
cause greater harm than other types of waste, its management is subject
to strict controls, which will apply to any projects approved by the
IPC.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful for the
Minister’s assurances. My question is undoubtedly down to my
lack of scientific understanding, but in clause 26(3)(b), the capacity
of the facility must
be
“more than 30,000
tonnes per year.”
I have
cited an incinerator that is taking 200,000 tonnes per year for one
county. I therefore have serious problems with what is meant in this
clause. If we could have some clarification in due course, it would be
very
helpful.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I shall try to come back to that. I will
first deal with the points that were raised in the course of the debate
on the amendment. The point that I was trying to make is that the
management of such facilities will be subject to strict controls, which
will apply to any projects approved by the
IPC.
Government
amendments Nos. 104, 141 and 142 will ensure that the IPC can consider
significant alterations to a hazardous waste facility as long as it
increases its capacity by the thresholds set out in clause
25. With similar amendments to other clauses in part
3, the measures will make the terminology consistent throughout
the Bill.
My hon.
Friend made a number of points. As set out in the planning White Paper,
the Government have been consulting on proposals relating to the
storage of higher activity radioactive wastes. The consultation closed
in November, as he said. The Government have since published a summary
of responses in which we have committed to publishing a White Paper in
the first half of the year that will set out the way forward for the
implementation of geological disposal, including of higher activity
radioactive waste. Such facilities are not included in clause 26. If we
eventually decide that radioactive waste should be dealt with by the
IPC, we would have to bring forward a statutory
instrument to have it included. That would be
subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thus ensuring
parliamentary debate and a decision from both Houses.
The Government remain committed
to exploring a policy of voluntarism and partnership—my
hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Cornwall made this
point—as recommended by CoRWM in the development of any such
facility. The final point raised by my hon. Friend was the question of
consultation with CoRWM. As he knows and as he outlined, the committee
was reconstituted only in October, and we have not yet had an
opportunity to consult it. However, I can assure him that we will
consult the committee in due course.
My hon. Friend and several
colleagues asked about the definition of hazardous waste and whether
such facilities deal with nuclear waste. For the purposes of statutory
regulation, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations
that specify the substances that are to be subject to controls. That
provision is currently made by the Planning (Hazardous Substances)
Regulations 1992 S.I. 656, as amended by the Planning (Control of
Major-Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999 S.I. 981. Hazardous waste can
arise from a wide range of materials, from chemical residues from
industrial processes to everyday items such as televisions and car
batteries. I assure the Committee
that the types of facilities we are discussing do not deal with
radioactive waste. Radioactive waste, as defined in section
18(4) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, is
excluded from the controls exercised in relation to hazardous
substances under the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990, and
transposed into the development consent regime that will be operated by
the commission. That is because such waste is controlled under
other legislation.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am usually grateful, but I am completely
mystified. Does what the Minister said mean that the Bill deals only
with nuclear waste?
Mrs.
Lait:
That is exactly how I read it, but I now get a
different impression—I am even more confused than I was to start
with. Perhaps, in due course, we could have a clear explanation of
exactly what the measure will mean, rather than the citing of many
complex pieces of legislation. Frankly, I find the 30,000 tonnes limit
very
worrying.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
These facilities are not included in
clause 26. If we eventually made a decision that
radioactive waste should be dealt with by the IPC, we would have to
bring in a statutory instrument containing the measure. That would be
subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thus ensuring
parliamentary debate and a decision from both Houses.
The hon. Lady also asked about
transporting waste. Disposal of contaminated soils will be covered
by the measure. Transport will still be covered by the
Environment Agency, not the IPC. She asked about removing decision
making on hazardous waste from local authorities. Decisions on the
largest hazardous waste facilities only will be transferred to the IPC.
They will provide vital facilities for the safe disposal of a wide
range of materials, not only industrial items, but everyday items such
as TVs, car batteries and fridges, as I said. The IPC
alone will grant development consent. Other regulators, such as the
Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, will ensure
that they comply with strict controls to protect the environment and
human health.
12
noon
The hon.
Member for North Cornwall suggested that local authorities were better
placed to reflect community views and engage with them, a point that I
covered in my reference to the assurances in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill
on the pre-consultation arrangements, the consultation over national
policy statements and the opportunity to get involved when an
application comes
forward.
The hon. Lady
raised a question about Kent’s 200,000 tonnes. Those deal only
with hazardous waste facilities, rather than general waste, which will
serve a much wider community than a single county. In summary,
I urge the hon. Member for North Cornwall to withdraw his amendment. If
he is not prepared to do so, I will ask my hon. Friends to vote against
it.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the Minister and understand
that we now have on the record the fact that the provisions do not
cover radioactive waste, which I am sure will be reassuring. With
regard to the hon. Member for Copeland suggesting that people should
not necessarily assume that his constituency will be the likely
location for such a facility, that is precisely what concerns the rest
of the country. Many people will, no doubt, be reassured by the
Minister’s comments and on that basis I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 104, in clause 13, page 7,
line 19, after ‘construction’ insert
‘or alteration’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
Mr.
Betts:
I beg to move
amendment No. 89, in
clause 13, page 7, line 21, leave
out subsections (3) to
(5).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 105 to 108, 110, 127 and 145 to
147.
Mr.
Betts:
One of the more interesting features of our
discussions on the definition of nationally significant infrastructure
projects is that we have spent an awfully long time being precise about
the definitions of certain projects and about what might or might not
come within the definition. There has been a lot of detailed debate on
trying to understand precisely what the Government intend to include.
It is almost as though the whole of that debate is swept away by
subsections (3),(4) and (5) of clause 13, which basically state that
whatever we have already discussed and put into the Bill can be changed
or added to if the Government so decide in the future.
If I have misunderstood the
precise intention of those subsections, I am more than happy to be
corrected by the Minister. However, it seems that it is almost not
worth while being so precise when going through clauses 14 to 26 and
the particular definitions of what projects may or may not be included
if, at some stage in the future, much more general definitions can
simply be added in. In some ways, that can override those that have
Ministers acting upon them because it states that the Secretary of
State may do so by order.
We know that orders can be
subject to parliamentary procedure, but the amount of discussion that
those orders have is obviously far less than can be given in Committee
stage and there is no ability to amend them, so it is a wide power. I
have moved the amendment in the hope that the Minister can convince me,
although hon. Members opposite might not be so generous in their
approach to matters.
I shall
give one example. I recognise that there will be further discussions on
light rail. The Local Government Association clearly has concerns about
whether light rail systems should be caught by the new
procedures. Would not it be possible for a Minister simply to stick
down, in section (1), a paragraph (n) for light rail schemes, which
need not be subjected to any further conditions, depending on what the
order says? They could simply be added in by order, despite the fact
that other projects that are caught by the legislation are much more
precisely defined, because of the detailed explanations currently in
clauses 14 to 26, including those that have been added by the various
Government amendments this
morning.
Why do the
Government need such wide powers? Will any new orders to add any
further categories and types of project have to be within the fairly
broad definitions of subsections (5)(a) to (e)? Is there no possibility
by order to add any types of infrastructure project that do not fall
within those categories or to add a new paragraph (f), which would add
another generality of category to those in subsection (5)? We have
spent a lot of time discussing the details of what is included, but
there is almost an open door for Ministers to push through anything
that they want to add, without the sort of scrutiny that we are trying
to give the various aspects of projects that will be caught by the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
I support the hon. Gentleman entirely on this. We,
too, tabled amendments because we are concerned about the potential for
an even wider reference to the IPC with the inclusion of the words in
the Bill. As far as possible, we want to ensure that there is no
mission creep. Our discussion on nuclear waste illustrates the
difficulty. While I applaud the thought that the Secretary of State
will retain final decision-making powers over nuclear power, it seems
slightly illogical for that to happen when every decision on major
infrastructure projects that cause great controversy is theoretically
meant to go through the IPC because it will be quicker. The logic of
that position escapes me unless it is an entirely political decision,
which rather puts into context some of the arguments about the
Secretary of State’s or Ministers’ quasi-judicial role in
planning.
We support
the deletion of these subsections. With their inclusion, will we see an
instant change, if not in this House perhaps in another House, to the
proposals that we are expecting in the marine Bill? We are debating the
Energy Bill, which has an impact. We have debated the Climate Change
Bill and we are expecting a marine Bill. They all potentially affect
nationally significant infrastructure projects, yet no cross-reference
is made to them. We can immediately see rafts of amendments being made
elsewhere to deal with this. I hope that the Minister will be able to
reassure us and we can at least get it on the record that the
Government have no intention of widening the criteria beyond energy,
transport, water, waste water or
waste.
Dan
Rogerson:
This is a sensible discussion for us to be
having. We must look at how the Bill is viewed by two opposing schools
of thought. One is that vital things must be done for the national
economy to keep the country ticking over, and that the provisions in
the Bill will allow that to happen. The other way of viewing the Bill
is from the local community’s point of view, which is that,
perhaps in line with a policy or a technology that may become outdated,
they have to
have something unpleasant imposed upon them. With that latter school of
thought in mind, it seems sensible that we try to restrict the
possibility of the provisions being extended much more widely than they
are already. Therefore, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe and the discussion that it has provoked are very
useful, and I support him in raising those concerns with the
Minister.
Mr.
Jones:
I echo the concerns expressed by the hon. Member
for Sheffield, Attercliffe and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham.
Without wishing to extend the debate, I would like some information
from the Minister as to the provisions of subsection (5), which limits
the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (3) to projects in
England in the fields set out beneath. It appears that not all the
fields referred to in subsection (5) are presently the subject of
devolution to the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government.
Will the Minister explain, therefore, why it is proposed that the power
conferred by subsection (3) should be confined to England and not
extend to Wales in those areas where competence is not already
devolved?
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): Following the
earlier debate, the Minister said clearly that “hazardous waste
facility” does not include nuclear waste. Does the reference to
waste in clause 13(5)(e) include nuclear waste? According to my reading
of subsection (3), it would not be possible to lay an order in order to
introduce the category of nuclear waste.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
As well as responding to the concerns raised
by hon. Members in relation to amendment No. 89 to clause 13, I also
want to speak to Government amendments Nos. 105 to 108, 127, and 145 to
147. I agree that it is a sensible discussion to be having, and that it
has been raised by a number of hon.
Members.
Let me begin
by responding to the concerns raised in relation to amending or adding
to the types of project that constitute a nationally significant
project. The rationale of hon. Members for removing that power is that
any change should be made by further primary legislation, so that
Parliament would have a say in whether to accept any changes in
additions to the list in clause 13(1). The Government believe that that
is unnecessary. We have already provided that the power is subject to
the affirmative resolution procedure. That will ensure parliamentary
debate and approval in both Houses for any change to that list, but
also takes care to sufficiently limit the power to projects that relate
only to energy, transport, water, waste and waste
water.
In addition, in
response to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West, to avoid disturbing the
devolution settlement, we will specify that new types of project may be
added only if they are in England, or, as I will now set out for the
Government, amendments in this group set in offshore
areas.
Mr.
Jones:
The Minister mentions not disturbing the devolution
settlement, but surely that settlement would not be disturbed if those
competences had not already been devolved to the Welsh
Assembly?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I have tried to respond by saying that the
devolution settlement will not be challenged. If the matters are
devolved then that will maintain it, if they are not, obviously, they
are included within the
Bill.
12.15
pm
The Government
amendments ensure that the list of categories in subsection (1) can be
amended and the power to direct that an application be considered by
the IPC in clause 30 can be used in relation to offshore developments
in waters adjacent to England and in a renewable energy zone, except
those where Scottish Ministers have functions. That is necessary to
give effect to these powers and to make the terminology in the Bill
consistent.
Government
amendment No. 110 is a minor amendment to ensure that the definition of
a nationally significant generating station includes those offshore
developments above the mean low-water mark, thus ensuring that they
capture all offshore developments in waters adjacent to England or
Wales up to the seaward limits of the territorial
sea.
The hon. Member for Beckenham
said at a previous sitting that we must have the flexibility to respond
to new technological advances and she specifically mentioned a recent
application for a
“carbon capture, coal-fired power
station at Kingsnorth as a response to a Treasury competition to design
carbon capture facilities”.—[Official Report, Planning
Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c.
280.]
I say to my hon.
Friend and others that without the power in subsection (3),
infrastructure contractors may not have the incentive or desire to
build such innovative facilities given the risk that they might not
fall within the remit of the IPC and the simplified consent regime
without further primary legislation. That would set back our efforts to
promote new clean technologies, which I use as an example to persuade
the hon. Lady to withdraw the
amendment.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am very grateful to the Minister, but I
do not understand why the E.ON application at Kingsnorth does not come
under subsection (1)(a) and is not required under subsection (5)(a) as
it is the
“construction
or extension of a generating
station”.
The fact that
it is using carbon capture is neither here nor
there.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The question was whether new technology may
or may not be included within the IPC’s remit. We suggest that
it may be a disincentive to developers to build such innovative
facilities if the risk is that it may not be included.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe asked about reassurance. The powers laid down in
these clauses will be applied only when there is a good
case. There will have to be consultation before
changing the threshold; there will be parliamentary scrutiny because
the statutory instrument will be subject to the affirmative
procedure.
The hon.
Lady asked whether the matter would go beyond energy, transport, water,
waste water and waste. There is no power in the Bill
to go beyond those categories as that would require primary legislation
and
we have no intention of expanding them. Clause 13(4) does not
allow us to change the list in subsection (5).
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West
asked about the devolution settlement, which I have covered.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd
Nant Conwy asked whether the reference to waste would allow the future
inclusion of radioactive waste under clause 13(5).
“Waste” potentially includes radioactive
waste—[Interruption.]
Mrs.
Lait:
Sorry, but there is consternation on the Opposition
side of the Committee. The Minister has just said that nuclear waste is
included in the list, but under the previous group of amendments he
said that we would need to table amendments to the Bill to include
radioactive waste. Is nuclear waste just a small part of radioactive
waste or is radioactive waste just a small part of nuclear waste? Is
that difference in definition in previous
Bills?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
What we are saying is that the Bill as
drafted does not cover radioactive waste. Were it to include
radioactive waste, the clauses contain the power for the matter to be
discussed with the House and for consultation to take place. That is in
line with my assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, in
respect of a previous amendment, that the matter could be dealt with by
statutory
instrument.
Mr.
Jones:
Is the Minister therefore saying that nuclear waste
falls within the definition of “waste” but not within the
definition of “hazardous
waste”?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The answer to the question that was asked
earlier about what is covered by “hazardous waste” is
that it does not include nuclear waste in the clauses discussed.
However, in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on whether it could be included in future, it
could be if it is considered appropriate by the Secretary of State.
However, that would be subject to consultation, there would have to be
reason for it and it would have to be subject to the affirmative
procedure in the House. In such an instance, matters could
change.
I apologise
for any confusion that I caused about carbon capture. In response to
the hon. Lady, my understanding is that carbon capture technology is
developing. It could be free-standing and might not be part of a
generating definition. In such an instance, it would be separate and
therefore would have to be dealt with as a new element. That is where
the power in clause 13(3) might be
applied.
Government
amendment No. 127 will simply extend clause 20 so that the IPC will
consider nationally significant harbour projects that
are
“in waters adjacent
to England or Wales up to the seaward limits of the territorial
sea”.
I hope that I have
given enough reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
Attercliffe, and I urge him to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Betts:
We always have discussions in Committee about the
extent to which additional powers have been taken by Ministers to come
up with further definitions
in future. There must be some degree of acceptance that Ministers, in
considering and putting forward proposals for a list of items to be
included in the scope of legislation, can never get matters absolutely
right and can never be absolutely precise. We need to recognise that
primary legislation comes along every so often, and that there can be
changes in circumstances in between that mean that additional
sub-categories of projects should be
included.
Given the
Minister’s assurances that nothing can be proposed outside the
scope of clause 13(5)(a) to (e), that there will be full consultation
outside this House with the relevant groups, and that orders will be
subject to the affirmative procedure in the House, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendments
made: No. 105, in clause 13, page 7,
line 28, after ‘if’ insert ‘—
(a)’.
No. 106,
in
clause 13, page 7, line 29, leave
out ‘England in the field of—’ and
insert
‘one or more of the fields specified
in subsection (6), and
(b) the works are
to be carried out wholly in one or more of the areas specified in
subsection (7).
(6) The fields
are—’.
No.
107, in
clause 13, page 7, line 33, leave
out
‘or’.
No.
108, in
clause 13, page 7, line 34, at
end add—
‘(7) The areas
are—
(a)
England;
(b) waters adjacent to
England up to the seaward limits of the territorial
sea;
(c) in the case of a
project for the carrying out of works in the field of energy, a
Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in
relation to which the Scottish Ministers have
functions.’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
Clause
13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 23 January 2008 |