Clause
34
Register
of
applications
John
Healey:
I beg to move amendment No. 356, in
clause 34, page 17, line 32, after
‘consent,’
insert—
‘(aa) consultation
reports received by the Commission under section
32(3)(c),’.
Clause
34 requires the commission to maintain a register of applications for
orders granting development consent and publish that register or make
arrangements for its inspection by members of the public. As currently
drafted, the clause requires the commission also to make applications
received available for public inspection, along with any accompanying
documents and information. That will ensure that the pre-application
stage is transparent and open to everyone involved or
interested.
The amendment
will add the pre-application consultation reports to those documents
that must be available for public inspection. As we said, those reports
are referred to in clause 32(7) and, in short, cover the consultation
carried out for a proposed application, the subsequent results and also
the account that has been taken of the consultation’s
results.
Overall, I
hope that hon. Members will agree that that adds to the openness and
transparency of the process. It ought to be a welcome amendment, and I
hope that it will
be.
Amendment
agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
35
Applications
by the Crown for orders granting development
consent
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this is will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 261, in clause 173, page 97, line 20, leave out
‘35’.
Robert
Neill:
I spoke too soon, as I had forgotten
about amendment No. 261 and apologise for
disappointing hon. Members. I shall try to make up for it by being
brief.
The purpose of
the amendment is to tease out from the Minister a little more of the
reasoning behind setting up a special regime to apply to the Crown in
relation to the applications under clause 35, as it is not entirely
clear to us. We appreciate that the Crown occasionally has difficult
situations, but would like some explanations for that special
procedure. Under what circumstances will applications be made by the
Crown, and what kind of difficulties could arise as a result of the
Crown being subject to the
law?
6.30
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
Although my amendment to delete
the clause will not be considered, I would like to
explore this clause further. The hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst quite rightly said that we need to explore the
circumstances in which the Government may depart from the provisions
that everyone else in the country has to conform to.
Also, will
the Minister define what is meant by Crown land? Does it include, for
example, Duchy of Lancaster land or, in the case of my own
constituency, Duchy of Cornwall land, because that land serves a
different purpose from Crown land, which is used for purposes on behalf
of Government and the nation as a whole? I would be interested to have
some clarification of exactly what is covered by this measure. I hope
that the Minister can see the distinction that I am making about
estates in which the primary purpose is to raise revenue for particular
members of the royal
family.
The hon.
Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, whose amendment prompted the debate
on clause 32, referred to the potential conflict of interest in the
Secretary of State determining applications. He saw
that as a potential criticism of his own argument. Here, we could have
the conflict of interest above all others if the Government are able to
impose particular strictures upon anyone else who applies to construct
a development. They could completely disregard the applicant for their
own ends. It would be helpful for us to hear from the Minister how
often he thinks that such action would be appropriate. Even if he is
able to clarify the matter, I am a little uneasy with the whole
concept. I think that members of the public and people in industry who
are forced to live by the Bill would feel aggrieved if the Crown were
able to sidestep the regulations that are imposed on everybody else. I
will be interested to hear what the Minister has to
say.
John
Healey:
I shall do my best. I would say to the
hon. Member for North Cornwall that it is quite
unlikely that the Duchy of Cornwall or the royal family would want to
promote a nationally significant infrastructure project on their
land.
Dan
Rogerson:
Just as the Minister is getting
going—I am aware that the Lord Commissioner of
Her Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, will be
raising his eyes about the progress that we are making—I would
like to mention that there are significant plans for housing
developments on land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, which may have
complicated implications for infrastructure projects. That is the
circumstance that I foresee. Obviously, we also want to hear what the
Minister thinks is appropriate on the wider issue of Crown
lands.
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman must appreciate
that this regime does not cover housing. We have
already dealt in some detail with the criteria that qualify an
application for a project. This is principally about Crown applications
for Government projects, such as highway projects in which the Highways
Agency would be the promoter. The measure is designed to be a fall-back
provision that is used in special circumstance. Hon. Members will
recognise that occasionally domestic or
international circumstance require the Government to
be able to act quickly in response to events that by their nature are
unpredictable and may not be capable of being captured and set out in a
national policy statement. Without the power set out in the clause, the
Government would not be able to respond.
Let me give an example. The
foot and mouth crisis required the urgent provision of infrastructure
in order to deal with the large quantities of animal waste that
resulted from the necessary culling that took place. The
provision is designed to deal with that sort of
circumstance.
The
regulations we propose would be subject to the negative procedure in
the House and would, therefore, be subject to an annulment resolution
of either House. It is an important power that we are
only likely to consider using in special circumstances and
occasionally. I hope that that explanation gives hon. Members some
reassurance.
Robert
Neill:
I will not make any cracks about Duchy Original
wind farms or anything of that kind. I understand the Minister’s
point and I will not seek to press the
clause to a Division.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 35
ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause
36
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
On a point of order, Sir John. Before I launch into
moving the amendment, I seek your guidance on a matter that I raised at
the beginning of this morning’s sitting. The Minister kindly
indicated to us that he was hoping to get the
consultation on the community infrastructure levy out in plenty of time
for organisations and ourselves to be able to consider amendments. I
now understand that it will be next week before that consultation goes
out, which makes it exceedingly tight for us to be able to get advice
from the bodies that are most directly concerned and to table
amendments, particularly if we were to be able to move on to
consideration of that next Friday. Could you give us some guidance as
to how we could cope with that situation, so that we can have a proper
debate on the
levy?
The
Chairman:
That is not a point of order for me, but the
Minister may wish to comment on
it.
John
Healey:
I thought that I made my intention clear this
morning. I said that we would get the consultation out, that it would
not be, as the hon. Lady mistakenly argued this morning, about
consultation on the draft regulations, but it would be a consultation
that set out more fully our approach to developing the community
infrastructure levy. We aim to do that in good time for the debate in
the Committee and that remains my
intention.
Clause
37
Duty
to
consult
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 37, page 18, line 17, at
end insert
‘and who must
include residents affected by the proposed
application’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be
convenient to discuss the following amendments: No.
12, in clause 37, page 18, line 22, leave out ‘may’ and
insert
‘shall’.
No.
168, in
clause 38, page 18, line 39, leave
out
‘or’.
No.
169, in
clause 38, page 19, line 2, at
end add—
‘(h) a parish
council,
(i) a community
council in Wales, or
(j) a
community council in
Scotland.’.
No.
63, in
clause 42, page 20, line 8, at
end add
‘and those who
might be significantly affected by the
development’.
Government
amendments Nos. 357 to
359
No. 174, in
clause 42, page 20, line 21, leave
out subsection (5) and
insert—
‘(5) The Commission
must commission an independent third party (“third
party”) to undertake such community engagement in relation to an
application for development as the relevant local planning authority
considers appropriate within a set period (“the community
engagement period”) of not more than six
months.
(6) The third party
shall be required to publish a report (“the community engagement
report”) on its work within 14 days of the end of the community
engagement period.
(7) The
community engagement report will publish responses from interested
parties, including but not limited to those defined as Categories 1, 2
and 3 in section 39.
(8) The
applicant must within three months of the publication of the community
engagement report publish a response to indicate its intentions to
change the application.
(9) The
application for development consent may not make progress until such
time as the applicant has complied with subsection
(8).
(10) If the applicant has
not complied with subsection (8) after a period of six months the
application shall be deemed to be
withdrawn.’.
No.
15, in
clause 50, page 25, line 29, at
end insert
‘and who must
include persons consulted under section
37(1)(a)’.
No.
297, in
clause 80, page 37, line 30, leave
out
‘and’.
No.
298, in
clause 80, page 37, line 31, at
end insert—
‘(c) an
independent third party (“the third party”) who shall
undertake community engagement as set out in subsection (7),
and
(d) senior officers and
councillors of the relevant local planning
authorities,’.
No.
321, in
clause 92, page 42, line 21, leave
out
‘or’.
No.
322, in
clause 92, page 42, line 22, at
end insert—
‘(f) the person
is a relevant parish
council,
(g) the person is a
relevant community council in Wales,
or
(h) the person is a relevant
community council in
Scotland.’.
No.
279, in
clause 92, page 43, line 9, at
end insert—
‘(ea) a parish
or town council in England, or a community council in
Wales,’.
Mrs.
Lait:
I rise to move our amendments Nos. 11, 12 , 15 and
279. I think that there is general agreement for all the amendments
that we must get the categories of people who are
consulted—
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Lady can speak to the other
amendments, but at this stage she can only move amendment No.
11.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am sorry. That was a procedural mistake and I
thank you for your guidance, Sir John. I will, indeed, speak to
amendment No. 11, which sets the tone for all the amendments in the
group. They are all to do with trying to get the pre-inquiry
consultation, and the people who need to be consulted,
correct.
There is
concern, across a broad front, that the lists in the
clause are tight. They mention various organisations and people. I
assume that, where the Bill mentions “persons”, it means
that people are able to represent the organisations. However crucial
the contribution made by organisations to the development of the
national policy statement, if they have a particular interest in an
area, they will probably tie the IPC in knots by demanding the right to
represent their views on a particular application because of their
detailed interest in it.
We see the practice emerging of
developers realising the importance of good consultation before putting
in an application. Frankly, they recognise that sorting out the
problems before putting in an application has the benefit that it will
go through much more speedily. We strongly support pre-inquiry
consultation because it is a key element in speeding
up planning inquiries, whether it goes through the IPC or through our
preferred route of an improved Planning Inspectorate. It is therefore
crucial that the right people are consulted, and that includes all who
feel that they have a legitimate point to make.
In amendment No. 11, we suggest
adding to clause 37 the
words
“residents affected
by the proposed
application”.
However, as
I understand it, clause 39 confines those who must be
consulted to the owners, lessees, tenants or occupiers of the land, or
persons who are “interested” in the land or who have the
power to sell, convey or release it. My reading of a person who is
interested in the land, coupled with the phrase “has power...to
sell”, implies that it is someone with a direct interest in the
land, and not necessarily a person who is concerned about the
development of the land and its impact on their community.
If my
interpretation is right—I hope that the Minister will assure me
that I am wrong—it could, for instance, mean that someone whose
property was not necessarily contiguous with the property being
developed but who happened to live in the village and who had a problem
with sight lines, or one of the many other of the complaints frequently
made under the planning system, could be ruled out from making a
complaint or from applying to be represented.
Because pre-inquiry
consultation is improving, I want to be assured that organisations that
represent people with a direct interest can continue to insist on being
consulted. I have in mind evidence from the Wildlife Trust, which I am
sure other hon. Members have received, particularly about electricity
cables in Kent. Because the trust was consulted by the developer before
the inquiry, it was able to resolve many of the issues, some to do with
the habitats directive and especially the habitat of the marsh harrier,
and a number of other clear and direct matters that were of benefit to
the environment. That was done under the auspices of a formal group. In
the spirit of getting the pre-inquiry consultation right, I would not
want such organisations to be unable to represent local residents
and local interests merely because they were not regarded as having a
direct interest. With that, you will be relieved to hear, Sir John, I
have covered all the ground that I need to on the
amendments. 6.45
pm
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I rise not only
to support amendment No. 11, but to speak to amendment No. 63, which I
tabled. Although that amendment nominally address clause 42, it is
along precisely the same lines as amendment No. 11 to clause 37, which
is on the duty to consult.
As the hon. Lady rightly said,
it appears from clause 39 that those who will be consulted will have a
proprietary interest in the land. Under clause 39(2), they will either
be a person “interested in the land” or someone who
has
“power...to
sell and convey the land, or...to release the
land.”
That is far too
prescriptive. I would therefore like us to add the
words
“and those who
might be significantly affected by the
development”.
The
wording of my amendment is not fanciful. If we look
at clause 13 and the various examples of nationally significant
infrastructure projects, we see that we have at least 12 or 13 bad
neighbours. The clause refers to the construction of waste treatment
plants, hazardous waste facilities, railways, which can be intrusive,
highways and pipelines, as well as to the extension of
airports—we all know about those—and the underground
storage of gas. Indeed, some large gas pipelines are currently being
sent through south Wales and are causing grave concern in many
communities throughout the area. However, I am thinking more of
airports. Sticking strictly to the proprietary interest line that a
person must be interested in the land contiguous to the development
tends to miss the point. Those who can be badly affected by airport
extensions can live miles away from the land that is being
developed.
That is why I
think that the Bill should be amended. My amendment is along the same
lines as the hon. Lady’s, with which I do not disagree. We are
both aiming at the same end product—a thorough inquiry that
places an obligation on the IPC to consult properly all those who might
be badly or substantially affected. That is the very least that we
should be aiming for in this aspect of the
Bill.
Dan
Rogerson:
The amendments that I tabled fall into two
groups. Amendments Nos. 168, 169, 321 and 322 refer
to the inclusion of parish councils or their equivalent in the
provisions. I might have been over-zealous in my reference to community
councils in Scotland, given that their appearance in later amendments
makes that superfluous. However, it is important that parish councils
are included in the process.
There are 70 parish councils in
my constituency, all of which very much enjoy their role as statutory
consultees on planning
applications— [
Interruption.
] I think that
some hon. Members are surprised that there are 70 in my constituency,
but I try to get to as many of them as I can. They take their
role in planning applications seriously, and they quite often dispute
with the district council whether their views have been taken into
account. At that point, anyone who has
chosen to attend the public gallery of a parish
council meeting gets very interested. We should reflect on that
fact. Parish
councils would be a useful addition to this and later parts of the
Bill. They provide an excellent forum for ensuring that information
about a proposed development is filtered out into the community and
that those views are reflected back. I hope that the Minister will be
able to accept that they ought to be added and that they are missing
from the Bill. If he feels that my amendments are not elegant enough,
perhaps he will undertake to examine at the issue and return to us
later.
My
second point relates to an issue that concerns me a little: developers
being asked to undertake consultation. The most important thing about
consultation is that it should be meaningful. As it is part of the
speeding up the process, anything that happens at the pre-application
stage will later be relied on for evidence, if the application is
considered. Let us take the example of a community that feels aggrieved
about something on which the IPC is due to make a decision. The local
people might feel that the consultation undertaken by the applicant at
the pre-application stage, or someone appointed by the applicant, does
not entirely reflect their views. While the IPC will no doubt want to
hear that that evidence is robust and that the consultation has taken
place properly, amendments Nos. 174, 297 and 298 would provide for the
employment of a third party to undertake that consultation. The third
party would be appointed by the IPC, although the charge would fall
upon the applicant.
No doubt the
Minister will say that it would not be right for the IPC to get
involved in such a way prior to the application. However, that would be
a way in which we could guarantee that the important pre-application
consultation, which seeks to improve applications and overcome one of
the factors that can delay them, is robust and not just fair, but seen
to be fair by those in the community concerned. I hope that the
Minister will consider the amendments and tell us how the Government
feel these points can be taken into
account.
John
Healey:
I do not think that there is any
significant difference in our objective of having the most effective
and thorough pre-application consultation and ensuring that those who
may be affected or who have an interest are included in that process.
All hon. Members would recognise that the consultation at the
pre-application stage is one of the cornerstones of the Bill. It is a
new requirement, as witnesses at our evidence sessions confirmed. It
will put a new requirement on project promoters that will lead to
better applications and new opportunities for local communities, local
residents and others to put forward their views. It will be an
opportunity not just to put forward views, but to influence the
development of a promoter’s proposal. Indeed, there is the
example of local residents working with the Wildlife Trust in Kent.
Once the application was submitted, it went through a process like this
and was vastly
improved.
Amendments
Nos. 11 and 63 are not necessary to achieve the aims of the hon. Lady
and the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Taken as a whole, the
provisions in part 5 already set a strong requirement to consult local
communities and the people affected. Clauses 42 to 44 will require the
promoter to prepare a statement setting out how the local community
will be consulted, to
publicise that statement in the relevant area, and to carry out the
consultation in accordance with the statement. It will also require
them to publicise a proposed application locally and to take account of
responses to the consultation. Clauses 37
and 39 have a different and more specific purpose. They will require
consultation with anyone with an interest in the land, anyone who might
be entitled to a compensation claim, even under the Compulsory Purchase
Act 1965 or the Land Compensation Act 1973, and those who may be
entitled to a claim for nuisance. The measure applies to owners,
lessees, tenants, occupiers of land, and other parties with such
interests. In addition, other statutory consultees can be
specified—there is provision to do so under regulations. That
answers the hon. Gentleman, but we will consider the points he raised.
I have already invited the Committee to make suggestions about what we
should consider under the process. We will use the regulations to
specify consultees after proper and widespread consultation.
That also answers the hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who asked about the position of
harbour authorities during a debate on part 3 of the Bill. Of course,
they come into precisely the category that I am talking about. We would
consider their position under the power I
described.
Mr.
Llwyd:
Clause 39(5)(c) is about persons who might have
“a claim for nuisance.” Will that category catch those
whom I described as being significantly affected by a development? For
example, will it catch a person who lives two miles away from a new
runway? Would they come within the ambit of the measure? It would be
encouraging if they did.
John
Healey:
I cannot say that such people will necessarily be
caught by the measure because I cannot anticipate
what circumstances will arise. However, the general provision for the
consultation requirements of a promoter in the local area and community
are likely to encompass the sort of people whom the hon. Gentleman has
in mind. To be honest, it is difficult to think of people who should be
consulted who are not covered by the proposals as they stand. Local
people, those who have a direct interest and those whose interests
could be affected are covered.
I have
addressed the question of parish and community-level councils but, in
summary, the strong duty to consult the local community at the
pre-application stage is set out in this part of the Bill. I have
covered hon. Members concerns. In addition, when a person makes a
written representation on a particular application, they will
automatically become an interested party under clause 92.
Finally, the
hon. Member for North Cornwall proposed third party intervention.
Specifying the requirements and responsibilities on the promoter,
giving them the principal responsibility to undertake those
effectively, and giving ourselves the capability to elaborate on them
later represents the better approach and the right one. The
responsibility should properly sit with the
promoter.
7
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
Let me give an example. There is an application
to build a wind farm in my constituency—I have heard of similar
things happening in north-east
Wales. The local residents who are
opposed to the scheme are a little suspicious of the pre-application
consultation that is being carried out by the developer. That
consultation is pretty much following the provisions set out in the
Bill by taking over church halls in the parish to put on displays and
so on. The local residents feel that the developer has all of the
resources at its disposal and that the conclusions that appear on the
website do not reflect the points that they have seen fit to put
across, not least by standing outside and giving alternative views on
what form the development might take and how it might affect the area.
The issue is whether people see the consultation as being biased
because it is the developer that undertakes
it.
John
Healey:
I understand that point, but we are setting out a
framework that will require certain things to be undertaken by any
promoter during consultation. The commission must be satisfied that the
promoter has complied with their duty of consultation before it can
accept the application. It must also have regard to the representations
that the local authority makes, specifically about how adequate the
consultation has been. The circumstances in which the pre-application
consultation will take place will be clearly specified and there will
be significant requirements on the
promoter.
The
responsibility must rest with the promoter to undertake the
consultation and we all want to ensure that promoters do it in certain
ways. Under the Bill, the commission must be satisfied that that has
been done properly before it even accepts the application for
subsequent
consideration.
Dan
Rogerson:
In the example that I gave, a crucial point for
those who oppose the development is not that the consultation has not
taken place. They do not dispute that it has. Their concern is how the
evidence will be reported back to the commission. I am not clear about
how the commission can determine whether the information that is
presented to it is a fair reflection of the consultation that has taken
place. For example, there is no representative of the commission in the
church hall while it is going on and there is no one to say what
members of the public did or did not say while looking at the displays.
The concern I have is that the developer will be able to present the
picture that it has talked to people in the local community and that
they are happy with the project, subject to one or two changes, when
that is not a fair reflection of what went on at the public
meeting.
John
Healey:
I have touched on this point, but the commission
will have the scope to set standards and requirements on the
pre-application process in addition to what is specified in the Bill.
It is obliged to make an assessment of the extent to which that has
been carried out. The local authority is in a formal position to file a
report and make representations on the adequacy of the consultation. I
hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that this process will create
greater confidence and help to create better applications. The
application might not be entirely accepted by local interests, but it
will be a better application as a result of the
consultation.
Mrs.
Lait:
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances on
amendment No. 169 on parish and community councils. We tabled a similar
amendment and look forward to those bodies being included in the list
of the statutory consultees.
I am grateful,
too, for the Minister’s explanation of his reading of how the
clause relates to the amendment. I am therefore unlikely to press it to
a vote, but I was interested that he did not refer to Government
amendments Nos. 357 to 359. I was waiting to hear him speak about them
and I deliberately did not refer to them. If I read them correctly,
those amendments will require the local authority to reply to a
consultation within 28 days of the date that it is received. A serious
consultation will take much longer. In due course, we will come to how
I envisage such a consultation being
conducted.
With
regard to the example cited by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I
imagine that local people would feel most aggrieved about a wind farm
application if they had only 28 days in which to be consulted and to
make their views known about its impact on them singly, collectively,
as a community, as residents, as activists or as people whose land is
contiguous to the development. With the best will in the world, it
would take them considerably longer than 28 days to get legal advice
about their powers and responsibilities and about the impact a planning
application for a wind farm might have on them or their
neighbours.
I want the
Minister to enlighten us on the thinking behind the 28 days’
limit for the local authority, because it entirely ignores the speed at
which local authorities progress, as even setting up a committee for a
local authority to consider an application takes longer than 28 days.
If an officer’s authorisation is required to confirm that the
consultation is adequate, aggrieved councillors will complain. If the
reference is to a portfolio-holder or the cabinet, they do not
necessarily meet every 28 days. Some clarification of the
Government’s amendments would be useful in helping us to decide
how to treat the
proposals.
John
Healey:
The hon. Lady is concerned about local
authorities, but applications will not come out of the blue. There is a
statutory minimum period. Some applications will be more complex than
others and it is plausible that a promoter will decide that a longer
period is needed for complex proposals or that the information is not
required in the 28-day time scale. In such cases, the promoter could
set a longer
deadline.
The
proposals refer to the pre-application process and are a new,
additional requirement on promoters. They are an innovation in the
application stage and represent a useful marker in the Bill, which
tries to strike a balance between ensuring that the work in preparing
and contributing to applications is done without delay and giving those
who have an interest or a viewpoint the chance to register it with the
promoter.
Mrs.
Lait:
I remain dissatisfied with the Minister’s
reply and I need to think much longer and harder
about it. However, I intend to withdraw the amendment
so that we can devote more thought to the matter and return to it on
Report.
Dan
Rogerson:
I, too, was pleased that the Minister said he
would consider parish and city councils as statutory consultees. He
said he would consult on who should be on the list, and I hope that he
will take into account my submission that parish and community councils
should be included.
The second group of amendments
is about who commissions the research and undertakes consultation at
the pre-application stage. The Minister said he would ensure that the
proposal is tightly drawn so that the commission can be confident that
the report it receives accurately reflects the views of people in the
community. On that basis, I will not press my amendment to a Division
so that we can debate it at a later
stage.
Mr.
Llwyd:
I have one question for the Minister on my
amendment No. 63. Will people who might be significantly affected by
the development be covered by clause 39(5)(c)? In other words, would
they be able to mount a claim for nuisance? If he cannot answer now, I
would be obliged if he would write to me in due course.
Mrs.
Lait:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
7.10
pm
Sitting
suspended.
7.22
pm
On
resuming—
Mr.
Betts:
I beg to move amendment No. 83, in
clause 37, page 18, line 19, after
‘London,’,
insert—
‘(ca) the relevant
passenger transport authority or authorities in cases where the
proposed application would have impacts on the provision of transport
in their area or
areas,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 84, in clause 50, page 25, line 33, after
‘London,’,
insert—
‘(ca) the relevant
passenger transport authority or authorities in cases where the
proposed application would have impacts on the provision of transport
in their area or
areas,’.
Mr.
Betts:
I shall try to be brief, in anticipation that my
hon. Friend the Minister will be even briefer and say that he accepts
the amendment.
We
have discussed the nature of the applications that
will be dealt with by the IPC which could have
transport implications—indeed, they could be about transport
projects. It is therefore entirely logical that the authority within
the public sector that is concerned with transport matters—the
passenger transport authority—should be named as one of the
organisations, even though it is not technically a local authority,
that is consulted about applications and notified by the commission
under clause 50 of an application being accepted.
There will be some anomalies if
we do not include transport authorities. In south Yorkshire, for
example, the PTA is responsible for passenger transport matters,
but under the Bill it would not be notified about applications. Next
door in Derbyshire, however, the county council would be notified, as
it is responsible for passenger transport. Equally, it is slightly odd
that in south Yorkshire, the bodies responsible for highways—the
city and borough councils—would be notified, but the body
responsible for passenger transport matters, the PTA, would
not. A PTA
comprises members of the various district councils in the county area,
but it is a separate statutory body with rights and powers that it
exercises without reference to the district council. It therefore ought
to be involved in the consultation and notification process. If we get
to the position under the Local Transport Bill in which passenger
transport authorities become integrated transport authorities and take
on some of the wider roles of transport, including road transport in
their areas, surely they would need to be consulted. Consultation about
road matters that currently goes to the district council might in the
future go to an integrated transport authority, which would be the
successor body to the passenger transport authority. That would clearly
need to be reflected in the
Bill.
My amendments
would clear up some of the current concerns about the neglect of
passenger transport issues, and the fact that county councils, as the
relevant bodies, will be consulted but transport authorities in the old
metropolitan areas will not. For those reasons, they are at least
worthy of the Minister’s consideration, if he cannot accept them
immediately.
John
Healey:
I believe my hon. Friend will accept that the sort
of applications that we are considering for the IPC
will vary greatly in terms of the impact on a particular area,
depending on the type of infrastructure that is proposed. In some
cases, the local transport authority will have a great interest in the
proposals, but it may well not in others. We are seeking to set out
those parties that will have an interest in each and every national
infrastructure project application, and which therefore must always be
consulted as a matter of
course.
I do not think
that my hon. Friend has made the case that passenger transport
authorities fall into that category. The proper place to deal with his
concerns is in secondary legislation. I shall indeed reflect further on
his comments in that context, but the Bill is not the proper place to
deal with his
concerns.
Mr.
Betts:
I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend’s
explanation and assurance that he will reflect on the amendments. I
hope that there will be a proper place for passenger transport
authorities as consultees to be incorporated in legislation, and I
accept his assurance that that is secondary legislation. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
37
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration
adjourned.—[Mr.
Watts.]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o’clock till
Thursday 24 January at Nine
o’clock.
| 
