Clause
96
Matters
that may be disregarded when deciding
application
Amendment
made: No. 385, in clause 96, page 44, line 29, after
‘are’ insert ‘vexatious
or’.—[John
Healey.]
Clause
96, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
97
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
98
When
power to intervene
arises
John
Healey:
I beg to move amendment No. 386, in clause 98,
page 45, line 16, after ‘effect,’
insert—
‘(aa) the Commission
has accepted the application and has received a certificate under
section 52(2) in relation to the
application,’.
This clause, together with the
next two clauses, provides that the Secretary of State can intervene to
decide an application in place of the commission, but only in certain
circumstances. Amendment No. 386 is designed to add a procedural
safeguard in such circumstances. It means that the Secretary of State
can intervene in an application only once it has been accepted by the
commission in accordance with clause 49, and the applicant has given
notice of the application to the appropriate people as required in
clause 50. What the amendment will do—I hope hon. Members will
understand this—is ensure that even when the Secretary of State
decides that they may need to intervene in a case to take the decision,
the application will still have gone through the appropriate procedures
before that
point.
Amendment
agreed to.
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 325, in clause 98,
page 45, line 30, leave out
‘and’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take
amendment No. 324, in
clause 98, page 45, line 32, at
end insert ‘and
(f) if the national
policy statement was given effect during the course of a previous
Parliament.’.
Dan
Rogerson:
These are probing amendments as this seemed to
be a part of the Bill where debate could be had. As I have said before,
the Minister has been very careful to make the distinction between the
role of Governments in setting policy and the role of the commission in
determining applications. One of the benefits of national policy
statements is that they provide a framework of which everyone is aware.
Once they are in place, they should speed up applications because
various issues do not need to be revisited on each occasion if the
national policy is
clear.
However, the
limitation of national policy statements in that context is that they
are set by a Government who have been elected. At the next general
election, when one of the statements may have become a cause of
controversy, an alternative Government may be elected on a mandate to
overturn the statement. I am sure that the Minister, and indeed the
hon. Member for Beckenham, will have their own views about that
contention.
John
Healey:
Does the hon. Gentleman have any particular policy
in mind? Does he have any particular party in
mind?
Dan
Rogerson:
One could think of policies on nuclear energy,
for example. A hypothetical party may be opposed to nuclear energy on
principle.
John
Healey:
So is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal
Democrats are a hypothetical party?
Dan
Rogerson:
I did not mention the Liberal Democrats; the
Minister did. Various political parties are opposed to nuclear
power.
The point I am trying to make
is that circumstances may change, and a national policy
statement’s virtue is that it should exist for a period of which
applicants are aware and within which they can work. The point that
provoked the amendments is that, in fact, the statements may be time
limited up until the next general election, because there may be
changes—even within a party. If the same party stays in power,
its balance and views may change based on who leads it following a
general election. All sorts of factors may change, and a national
policy statement can be guaranteed only until a general election,
because if there is a change of Government the statement may change.
What view has the Minister taken on that issue? Does he feel that it
undermines the concept of the national policy statement? This is really
a probing amendment to provoke that
discussion.
Robert
Neill:
An interesting point has been raised, but I shall
not add to what has been said. One assumes that the power of
intervention will be extremely limited, but I am intrigued, and we
return to a previous discussion prompted by my hon. Friend the Member
for Beckenham. If one considers subsection (3), which sets out the
second set of conditions for an intervention, it is noteworthy that the
test throughout is materiality, as opposed to, let us say, importance
or relevance. It seems to me that there is an internal inconsistency in
the Bill. It is sensible to use materiality, because it covers all the
important issues, and is well known and well established, but the fact
that the Government think it appropriate to use materiality in this
clause undermines the use of a different test
elsewhere.
John
Healey:
I am not sure that the amendments proposed by the
hon. Member for North Cornwall would do what he thinks they might,
because if they were agreed to, the Secretary of State, to intervene,
would have to be satisfied not only that all the conditions in clause
98(3) had been met, but that the national policy statement in question
had been given effect in the previous Parliament. In other words, the
amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from intervening in any
cases where the relevant national policy statement had been designated
during the current Parliament. I am not sure that that is what the hon.
Gentleman wants.
There is a good case for
intervention when defence or national security matters are involved,
and there is also a good case when a national policy statement is out
of date and bears on a decision that cannot wait until the review of
the statement is complete. Those conditions are set out in the Bill. I
am struggling to grasp the hypothetical situation that the hon.
Gentleman introduced to the Committee, but—perish the
thought—those conditions may meet his concerns rather better
than his amendments would.
Robert
Neill:
Is that a Liberal
interpretation?
4.45
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
I made it clear that I do not feel that the
commission will be accountable enough. The Minister has countered that
argument by saying that
there is enough accountability at the policy-setting stage. I was merely
making the point that national policy statements are only really valid
until there is a change of Government, when they might change. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
99 and 100 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
101
Grant
or refusal of development
consent
John
Healey:
I beg to move amendment No. 387, in
clause 101, page 47, line 4, leave
out from ‘(b)’ to end of line 6 and insert
‘associated
development.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to consider
Government amendments Nos. 388 to
390.
John
Healey:
The amendments are designed largely to clarify the
meaning of “associated development”. First, they clarify
the definition of “England” and confirm that it includes
territorial waters adjacent to England and the renewable energy zone,
except any part of the REZ in relation to which Scottish Ministers have
functions. Secondly, they clarify the fact that surface works connected
with an underground gas storage facility in Wales will not qualify as
associated development. They are designed to preserve the devolution
settlement.
While I
am clarifying and confirming, may I, with your slight indulgence,
Mr. Illsley, confirm to the Committee that the consultation
document on the community infrastructure levy is published this
afternoon? I have copies with me if hon. Members wish to consult them
this evening and over the weekend. I also confirm that, although I have
been in the Committee with its other members for four hours this
afternoon, it is my intention that amendments on Welsh matters and the
community infrastructure levy will be tabled this afternoon, thus
meeting the undertaking that I gave the Committee that they would be
tabled in good time to aid our proceedings.
In fact, I can confirm not only
that I aim to have them tabled this afternoon but that they have been
tabled.
Mrs.
Lait:
I have no intention of holding the Committee up, but
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister. I am sure that there was
a great deal of rushing around going on, and I am glad that I shall not
have to use the word “incompetence” about him, unlike
certain ex-members of the
Government.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendments
made: No. 388, in clause 101, page 47, line 6, at end
insert—
‘(2A)
“Associated development” means development
which—
(a) is associated
with the development within subsection (2)(a) (or any part of
it),
(b) is not the
construction or extension of one or more dwellings,
and
(c) is within subsection
(2B) or (2C).
(2B) Development
is within this subsection if it is to be carried out wholly in one or
more of the following
areas—
(a)
England;
(b) waters adjacent to
England up to the seaward limits of the territorial
sea;
(c) in the case of
development 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.
(2C)
Development is within this subsection
if—
(a) it is to be
carried out wholly in
Wales,
(b) it is the carrying
out or construction of surface works, boreholes or pipes,
and
(c) the development within
subsection (2)(a) with which it is associated is development within
section
16(3).’.
No.
389, in
clause 101, page 47, line 7, leave
out ‘development falling within subsection (2)(b)’ and
insert ‘associated
development’.
No.
390, in
clause 101, page 47, line 10, leave
out ‘falls within subsection (2)(b)’ and insert
‘is associated development’.—[John
Healey.]
Clause
101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
102 to 104 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Watts.]
Adjourned
accordingly at ten minutes to Five o’clock till Tuesday 29
January at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
