---

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said at the last stage. He has more or less repeated that.

On 1 March he talked about people not wanting to,

"wait until an inquiry to make their voices heard".

I was particularly struck by his suggestion that:

"By the time the inquiry takes place, positions will have hardened".—[Official Report, 1/3/04; col. 535.]

The Campaign to Protect Rural England has been a vigorous supporter of this amendment. That organisation might be thought to be less concerned with economic impact assessments than with pinning down every last detail of environmental appraisal. The fact that it is not—and I do not think there is anybody in the Chamber whom I will provoke too much by stating this view—is probably a major achievement of the EU.

At the last stage the Minister spoke at length on this amendment, but he did not say why he opposed it. He suggested that it was unnecessary—he says that in his letter.

On the second limb, the EU environmental impact assessment directive requires consideration of the alternatives to many major projects. The Minister said that the inspectors should not have to spend inquiry time on an alternative. That either means that the amendment is otiose, or it is necessary because of the confusion. But neither way is it wrong. We support the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said, this is an issue that has been debated many times, and at least twice in your Lordships' House. Although the debate was not as full as the noble Lord would have liked, we recognise that it was an important debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has anticipated some of the arguments that we intend to deploy this evening. At an earlier stage, we said that we thought that the amendment was unnecessary because a promoter of the type of development which the Secretary of State is likely to declare a major infrastructure project—either of national or regional importance—would engage with all parties concerned as early as possible. Intelligent developers will do that, whatever the nature of the development, particularly if they want to be successful.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 907

We would expect some form of economic impact assessment or report to have been completed in preparation for the application, in much the same way that we would expect an environmental impact assessment or statement to have been prepared. This should be—would be—well in advance of the stage at which the amendment envisages it happening. Any major developer will look at those issues right at the outset, to understand the opportunities and options—and the likelihood of the application's success. We would expect the promoter of a development of the type that we are discussing to engage at an early stage with all concerned. That would mean that, by the time an application for planning permission was made to the local planning authority, the community would have already been actively engaged in the processes.

It puzzles us slightly why the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, feels that only an economic impact report should be a statutory requirement for a major infrastructure project inquiry. What about all the other important impacts, such as those on transport, highways, amenity value and loss, and social, environmental and cultural factors? All those seem highly relevant, so why just focus on the narrow concern of economic impact?

On the second subsection of the amendment, I shall repeat what was said both in Committee and on Report. Clearly, where there is a national policy statement, or White Paper, it will help to reduce argument at a planning inquiry about the need for a specific development of a particular type at a particular site. Where need is established by a national policy statement, the inspector should not have to spend lots of inquiry time considering whether a need for the development exists. He should instead consider whether the need identified is outweighed by other factors. That does not rule out the possibility that the inspector will spend some time looking at need, but it will be in the context of what is said about need in the national policy statement. I do not think that we can say more than that. The Government do not want to require through primary legislation that an inspector considers need. There may be circumstances where there is agreement on the issue of need and when inquiry time could be more usefully spent considering other issues specific to the proposed development.

I recognise the importance of the amendment and understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, tabled it, particularly given his experienced background and knowledge of major development proposals in and around Essex. However, it is too narrowly concerned and too narrowly crafted. In the circumstances, we do not wish to see the amendment pushed forward. We do not think that it adds anything further to the legislation, so I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. We have debated the matter but not as fully as one would have liked, and it has normally been at a late hour. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his comments today. Major infrastructure developments are normally put forward for economic benefit and need—I do not like to return to Stansted,

25 Mar 2004 : Column 908

but it is in the context of economic benefits and need. That is why we are suggesting an economic impact assessment first, rather than all the other impact assessments. I agree that they must take place, but they should come as part of the inquiry and the debate on the whole issue. That is why it is important that the inquiry should have the opportunity to discuss all the issues relating to a major project.

I agree totally that inquiries should not last three or five years, for example, and that we should speed up the processes. But there must be the opportunity at an inquiry to question the need and the positioning of a runway or a bridge, for example. Later we will have bridges along the Thames, which will involve another big debate. I am not saying that those projects should not happen; governments have a right to put in White Papers that they should happen. But there must be local debate and a proper inquiry to ascertain the positioning, potential need and the reasoning behind projects.

I do not think that the Government have fully allayed people's fears that there will be enough freedom and democratic input to those major national decisions, which affect so many people's lives and affect our country for ever. Therefore, I feel that I need to test the opinion of the House.

6.29 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 80.

Division No. 9

CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Biffen, L.
Blatch, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Burnham, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Craigavon, V.
Deedes, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elton, L.
Falkland, V.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Greaves, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Howe, E.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jopling, L.
Kingsland, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Liverpool, E.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Marlesford, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monson, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Newby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Peel, E.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees, L.
Rennard, L.
Renton, L.
Roper, L.
Rotherwick, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selsdon, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Stewartby, L.
Swinfen, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tope, L.
Tugendhat, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Amos, B. (Lord Privy Seal)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Blackstone, B.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Erroll, E.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hayman, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Judd, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Mitchell, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Robertson of Port Ellen, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Rooker, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Warner, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 909

6.40 p.m.

Clause 46 [Planning contribution]:

---