I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 10—Railways.

Government amendments Nos. 77 and 78.

Amendment No. 325, in clause 14, page 8, line 12, leave out ‘or Wales’.

Amendment No. 315, in clause 19, page 11, line 10, after ‘authorisation)’, insert

‘or a pipe-line laid by a gas transporter holding a licence pursuant to section 91(a) of the Gas Act 1986 and which requires consent under regulation 14 of the Public Gas Transporter Pipe-line Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999’.

Government amendment No. 79

Amendment No. 331, in clause 20, page 12, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 332, page 12, line 23, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendment No. 333, line 30, leave out ‘trunk road or’.

Amendment No. 334, line 32, leave out ‘trunk road or’.

Amendment No. 335, line 37, leave out ‘trunk road or’.

Amendment No. 336, line 38, leave out ‘trunk road or’.

Amendment No. 337, line 41, leave out ‘cycle track’.

Amendment No. 338, line 42, leave out ‘footpath’.

Government amendments Nos. 80 to 88.

Amendment No. 316, in clause 31, page 19, line 32, at end insert—

‘(l) consent under regulation 14 of the Public Gas Transporter Pipe-line Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.’.

Government amendments Nos. 89 to 92, 158 to 160, 249, 251, 253 and 254.

I am delighted to move new clause 9, which sets off the debate on a series of provisions on developments for which consent is required or can be granted.

This group of amendments includes a number tabled by the Government, which make significant changes to the thresholds for highway, railway and airport development. There are also changes ensuring that clusters of projects are dealt with correctly and reflect some of the concerns raised in Committee. There are amendments tabled by Opposition Members and two from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan).

New clause 9 and amendments Nos. 79, 90, 91, 158 to 160, 249, 251, 253 and 254 are intended to clarify the type of highway project that is captured in the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will see that the amendments make the highways threshold considerably simpler. They are the result of work undertaken to reflect points put to us in Committee, and points of concern put to us by other interested parties about the complexity of the Bill as originally drafted. To some extent, that complexity cannot be avoided, as the Bill draws numerous pieces of legislation together in a single consent regime for the first time—a prize and a policy aim for which there is, I think, broad support in all parts of the House. That was certainly the case in Committee.

The principal change in new clause 9 is that we are setting out three clear types of highway development in England that will be put before the infrastructure planning commission for determination. The first type concerns a development that is, or will be, constructed for the purposes of a highway on the strategic road network—roads for which the Secretary of State is, or will be, the highway authority. The second type of development is the improvement of a highway on the strategic road network that will have a significant impact on the environment. The third is an alteration of a highway that is being carried out by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for a purpose connected with a highway on the strategic road network.

Decisions on all those projects are currently made by the Secretary of State, so let me make it clear to the House that there is no question of taking from local decision making, or of there being an impact on local decision making. I should also stress that the clauses clarify the existing threshold. They will not result in additional projects going before the IPC for determination. I now turn to amendments Nos. 331 to 338, tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson).

I chided the Minister rather hard in the previous debate, but may I ask him a question gently, in a spirit of good will? New clause 9, along with a large number of other clauses, applies to England only. With the greatest good will in the world, how will the Bill work when the provisions for England are so different from the provisions for the rest of the United Kingdom? For example, if the powers in new clause 9 were to be invoked in relation to a road that ran from England to Wales, how would the development be dealt with?

When we published the White Paper on the planning system and our proposals for reform last year, we recognised that certain planning matters are devolved. The devolution settlement was generally working well, and we did not set out to change it in the Bill. That is why, under new clause 9 and the amendments in the group, where there are matters for the Secretary of State relating to England and English roads, they can be passed to the IPC for determination. Decisions of that sort in Scotland or in Wales might be variously devolved and therefore will not be matters that we put to the IPC. That is the reason for the difference.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. As we said in Committee—the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), dealt with these parts of the Bill in Committee—most motorways and some A roads are indeed strategic roads that are essential to the economic functioning and prosperity of the country, allowing people and goods to move quickly and efficiently. In all cases, if a road is a trunk road, the Secretary of State will be the highway authority: the new clause and related amendments will have no impact on local decision making. Those roads will remain defined under the provisions as nationally significant infrastructure and therefore a matter for the IPC.

As recently amended, the Bill specifically brings aircraft and air passenger movements into the realm of the planning system. What regime currently governs passenger and air movements in airports? I understand that a Civil Aviation Authority licence is involved in the cases of Heathrow and Gatwick, but will the Minister explain the position for the rest of the country?

rose—

Will my hon. Friend give way at an appropriate moment?

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. He is an expert on these matters and has a strong constituency interest in and track record on the issues that we are discussing. I shall give way to him and then deal with any necessary points from both interventions.

On a point of clarity, will the Minister confirm that what we are referring to is, for example, the potential for the lifting of the Cranford agreement or changes on runway alternation to be included in the legislation?

Any changes to, and therefore increase in, the use of an airport that lead to an additional 10 million or more passengers a year or to an additional 10,000 or more freight movements a year—whatever the source—should be considered, within the new planning system in the context of the new national policy statements, as physical developments; they might lead to the same impact. Stansted is an example. At that airport, there is an application relating to the lifting of a planning condition that restricts the number of flights. If such an application went ahead, there could be an increase in the number of passengers. To be consistent, such a change would be brought within the new system. That is what we propose.

It would be invaluable if Members whose constituencies, in west London and beyond, are affected by Heathrow, got absolute clarity on this matter with regard to the Cranford agreement and runway alternation at Heathrow. At some time during the debate, will the Minister clarify whether he is now saying that the amendments tabled by the Government would enable those agreements to be changed or lifted in some way as a result of this process? That could result in a significant increase in air traffic movements at Heathrow without there being any physical infrastructural developments.

To the extent that I can give such clarification and that it is necessary to go beyond what I have already explained in order to do so, I will.

What we are discussing is one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill in relation to air travel, and it would be useful to have it clarified. To understand how these amendments and clauses work, may I ask whether, in future, that extra runway at Stansted—to take the Minister’s example—would already have been subject to an examination in respect of a national policy statement? In other words, will the infrastructure planning commission operate in a climate in which a national policy statement will already say whether there should be another runway at Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick or wherever?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick around for the whole debate, because we will come later to the question of national policy statements, what properly constitutes them and what stages of public consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and environmental appraisal are required before such statements can be put in place. Only when such a statement is in place can the IPC consider an eligible application for a major development project within the relevant territory. That basis would have to be properly put in place before the new system could activate to consider an application that, under the terms of these provisions, would meet the thresholds that we set out.

Turning to clusters and our amendment No. 92, we had a useful debate in Committee about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might direct a series of proposed projects to the IPC. The amendment clarifies our intention that where a series of projects that fall below the threshold are proposed for similar infrastructure projects, the Secretary of State may direct them to the IPC as being collectively of national significance, thereby reflecting the potential cumulative impact that such clusters of projects can have on an area. The hon. Member for North Cornwall is well aware of that from his own area. I stress, however, that we envisage that that ministerial power of direction would be exercised on the basis of clear criteria set out in a ministerial statement or in the national policy statement itself. Furthermore, we would expect it to be used comparatively rarely and to deal largely with circumstances that were impossible to predict, such as changing technology, changing circumstances in a particular sector, or situations where several projects have come forward in close proximity to each other and are therefore likely to have a cumulative impact requiring consideration as a whole. I hope that hon. Members accept that this is a sensible flexibility in the system that will allow us to deal with appropriate but unforeseen circumstances.

Will the Minister confirm, purely for the record, that his proposals on clusters will not be applied to eco-towns?

It is hard to see how eco-towns would fall within the Bill’s provisions, not least because they are housing developments, which are not proposed as eligible major infrastructure projects for the new system of IPC consideration and determination.

Let me respond to the points raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Beckenham when we discussed how multiple applications or multiple projects considered as a whole in one application could work. The mechanisms by which the IPC considers separate applications together will be outlined in the relevant national policy statement, in the terms of the Secretary of State’s direction, and in other relevant IPC standards and guidance. We intend that where separate projects are directed to the IPC to be treated together, the promoters will be required to work together to create a harmonised set of documentation for the ease not only of the IPC but, importantly, of the public and other local interests that might want to have a significant say on such an application.

I will touch briefly on two other important issues dealt with in this group of amendments. The first is raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) in his amendments Nos. 315 and 316, which relate to high-pressure pipelines constructed by licence—gas transporters. He has pursued that subject strongly over the past few months. As I said, the aim of the Bill is to simplify and streamline the planning system for major infrastructure projects. The industry has raised the issue of larger gas transporter pipelines, which can sometimes require a number of other consents. We regard this as raising several important matters, as my hon. Friend has rightly argued. We have a number of practical points to explore further with the industry, and we have to do that before we come to a firm decision on whether those pipeline projects should be considered by the IPC.

On those practical points, would the Minister consider meeting people from the industry at an early stage to discuss the security aspects and the environmental ones?

My hon. Friend pre-empts me. I was going to suggest that he broker a meeting with my leading officials—if not with me—so that we can take the process a stage further. We could assess the impact of the industry’s proposal and see how it would fit within the established devolution, and assess the extent to which the existing system of permitted development is working well. If my hon. Friend were prepared to broker such a meeting, it would be an important and useful next step.

This is the first group of a large number of Government amendments—they are overwhelmingly of a technical nature—that we have to consider. As we heard, the large number of amendments has taken those who served in Committee by surprise. The amendments are extensive, and for the most part they are significant. To a considerable extent, the amendments appear to address matters that should have been considered long before the Bill was published—certainly not later than the Committee sittings. In fact, some of the amendments amend amendments that were made in Committee. It is fairly obvious that amendments have been tabled as a result of pressure on the Minister from other Whitehall Departments, which have clearly been crawling all over the Bill, having their four pennies’ worth.

The most significant amendments, as the Minister said, are new clauses 9 and 10. By virtue of amendment No. 79, clause 20, which deals with nationally significant highway projects, is deleted altogether, while new clause 9 substitutes a definition of “highway-related development”. New clause 9 is largely welcome, given that it appears to avoid the risk of small-scale highway projects falling within the definition of “nationally significant infrastructure project”. Members of the Committee were concerned that including smaller scale projects could clog up the development consent system and so defeat the object of streamlining the consents process. The Local Government Association expressed the view that local authorities should continue to maintain their role on trunk roads, particularly the smaller and less used ones. It is therefore good that the Government have acknowledged the force of the arguments expressed in Committee and by the LGA, by effectively restricting the IPC procedure to major trunk road projects.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out in his intervention, it is notable that the development consent route is available only for roads wholly contained in England; Wales and Scotland are excluded, as are cross-border routes. The issue of cross-border routes is particularly contentious. The Government have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill—in fact, the Minister just reiterated this—that they are reluctant to disturb the devolution settlement. That is quite understandable. Nevertheless, it is hard to see why such an important Bill could not have been introduced with the co-operation and support of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Executive, so as to ensure that the streamlined development consent process, which the Government are so keen on, could apply to cross-border highway routes.

The matter was raised in Committee. I had hoped that the Government would liaise with their colleagues in the devolved Administrations, to see whether it was possible to extend the development consent procedure to cross-border highways. As it is, consents relating to both ends of new cross-border routes will have to be considered under the existing disparate procedure. As I am sure the Minister will be well aware, that procedure has resulted in some cross-border routes not being completed as quickly as they should be.

A prime example—I relate this with feeling—is the A5117 link road between the M56 and the A55 north Wales expressway. That route has taken an inordinately long time to complete; in fact, it is still in construction as I speak. If devolution is to work sensibly, there is no reason why the Government should not liaise with the devolved Administrations to see whether it is possible to bring uniformity to matters as important as those that we are considering today. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the opportunity was taken to liaise with the devolved Administration in respect of that matter and whether he feels that an opportunity was missed to improve cross-border road networks.

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows this better than I do, but in that respect the Bill applies not only to roads, but to railways. Is it not folly that a major road or rail scheme might get to the boundary of Scotland or Wales, but then face inordinate delays in reaching its final destination, thereby watering down the whole purpose of the scheme?

My hon. Friend is quite right. As I have said, that is the very problem that travellers along the north Wales coastal road have experienced for many years, as a consequence of the delayed completion of the A5117 link. He is right, too, that the regime applies also to railways. The concern is that devolution, which is supposed to work for the benefit of the residents of the devolved Administrations, is perhaps being applied too strictly, to the extent that it is penalising those people.

The Minister mentioned the amendments to the regime concerning railways. New clause 10 is a substitute for the old clause 23, and provides a new definition of the construction or alteration of a railway. It is the second such amendment of the clause. In essence, the new clause raises the railway threshold so that it relates only to strategic rail links and not to light tramways or guided transport. Again, the Government, to their credit, appear to have listened to the concerns that were expressed in Committee, where Members said that tramways should properly be in the domain of the local planning authority and not the infrastructure planning commission.

Subsections (1)(c) and (2)(c) of the new clause provide that the construction or alteration of a railway carried out pursuant to permitted development, which is

“development in relation to which planning permission is granted by article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995”,

is specifically excluded. As the Minister will be aware, part 17 of the 1995 order provides that permitted development is:

“Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.”

It is interesting that the new clause does not disturb that.

One can fully understand the need for the GPD regime to be preserved in respect of railways, but will the Minister explain why Network Rail, uniquely among statutory undertakers, should have those rights preserved? As far as I can see, permitted rights are not being preserved for other statutory undertakers—specifically, as I hope to discuss later, the operators of ports and harbours. Will the Minister explain why it is thought proper to preserve those GPD rights in relation to railways but not for other statutory undertakers?

The Minister mentioned the amendments on airports. Amendments Nos. 77, 81, 82, 83 and 84 all relate to air transport. Their effect is to ensure that where there is an existing restriction on the number of passenger movements or cargo aircraft movements at an airport, any proposal to increase the annual use of the airport by more than 10 million passengers or 10,000 air transport movements of cargo aircraft will be a matter for the new single development consent process. The Minister has said that that will apply even if the promoter does not propose the physical development of the site.

I have asked the Minister which regimes currently govern passenger and air cargo movements per se—those that are unrelated to physical alterations to the airport— and I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for a licensing regime in respect of Gatwick and Heathrow. The Minister has indicated that the planning regime is already used for other matters, but that would, I imagine, be in respect of physical development, because it is clear from the amendments that passenger and air transport movements, per se, are being brought within the planning process for the first time.

Speaking entirely as a lay person, I find it hard to see how the significant intensification of an airport’s use by so many additional traffic movements could be accommodated without at least some physical development of the site. That might simply mean more lavatories in the air terminal, but more car parks and reception facilities might also be needed. I should think, therefore, that applications seeking consent for increased air traffic movements, in isolation, will be relatively rare, but one can imagine how disturbing such applications will be to residents of neighbouring properties and even of properties some miles away from the airport. To put it bluntly, there is extreme concern that such applications will result in a large number of irate householders complaining about the disturbance that they are likely to experience as a result. We shall debate the subject of the IPC at a later date, but this seems to be a prime example of a situation in which it is right for there to be political accountability and transparency, and for a Minister to be answerable for a policy, in the House, to the Members of Parliament who represent the aggrieved householders. Given the sensitivity of these proposals, what assurance can the Minister give us that the interests of aggrieved neighbours will be properly represented in respect of such applications?

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 77 and 80 to 87, which deal with airport-related developments. It is critical for my constituents to get some clarity on the process by which future airport developments—particularly at Heathrow—will be dealt with as a result of this legislation.

A conspiracy theory is developing in my constituency around the development of Heathrow airport. It is not some sort of collective paranoia; it is based on the reality that the development of Heathrow has, until now, been a conspiracy. Every assurance that my constituents have been given about the limitations to be placed on the development of Heathrow has been reneged upon within a short space of time after it was given, even on the Floor of the House. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide that clarity.

The Bill deals with the process by which an airport development can take place to increase the usage of that airport, with or without the physical development of some form of infrastructure at the airport. At the moment, airport development is controlled, first, by statements to the House made as a result of the various planning inquiries. The last statement was made by the Secretary of State for Transport and, as a result of the recommendation by the inspector at the inquiry on terminal 5, it capped air traffic movements at Heathrow airport at 480,000 a year. That limit will shortly be reached.

I understand that if there is a proposal to lift that cap beyond the limits set out in this legislation, that decision will form part of the new process in the Bill. That is one form of limitation that will have to be considered through this process, if it results in the additional 10 million air cargo movements set out in the amendments.

In addition to the overall cap on flight movements, at Heathrow there are other agreements that have arisen as a result of the planning processes at a number of inquiries, such as those for the fourth and fifth terminals, and even ones before those. Largely, they are voluntary agreements. One is on runway alternation and another is the Cranford agreement. They provide a means of relief for households in my constituency and across west London and beyond, into Windsor. At least for part of the day and for part of the week, people have a break from aircraft flying overhead, creating noise and pollution.

I am unsure whether those agreements, if they were lifted or amended in some way, would also form part of this process. Lifting or changing the agreements could result in a significant increase in the intensity of the use of Heathrow airport and, as a result, have a devastating impact on the lives lived in the locality.

I shall give an example. On Saturday, there was a demonstration that said no to the expansion of Heathrow airport, and a head teacher was present with their pupils. As a result of those agreements, they at least gain some break during the day when teaching with the windows open can continue. Without those agreements, the windows would have to be closed. It is difficult to teach anyway due to the noise of the aircraft overhead. It is critical for my constituents and others to be absolutely clear about what falls within this legislation and what does not.

I refer back to the concept of a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory that is developing now about the proposals for the expansion of Heathrow airport relates to the amendments. The Government are having difficulty overcoming the issues around air and noise pollution, which would enable them to expand with a third runway and a sixth terminal, as proposed. We now know that the Government are privately looking to go to the European Union for permission to derogate from those pollution limits, despite the assurances given on the Floor of the House that no third runway or sixth terminal would go ahead unless they strictly comply with those limits.

If that was the case, my constituents would be concerned that the Government might not get permission or would allow themselves in the short term to go ahead with a third runway and sixth terminal. Therefore, to increase capacity at Heathrow airport they would lift the cap on flights but also remove the Cranford agreement and the alternation agreement. That would allow intensified use of the airport and have a major impact on the local environment and the quality of life of local constituents.

It is critical that we get it clear what will and will not fall within the legislation as a result of the amendments. If it is the overall cap, I can understand that, but is it also the voluntary agreements, which have given some protection to my constituents as well as to most parts of London and into Windsor and elsewhere? I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that in today’s debate. Failing that, I would be happy to receive information over the next few days, but before next week’s discussions. He may want to provide information or write to us so that we can at least inform our constituents accordingly. I believe that a number of Members representing west London seats, Windsor and elsewhere have not fully appreciated the potential of the amendments, if they will indeed have such an impact on runway alternation and the Cranford agreement. There would have been wider attendance at today’s debate from those Members if they had been aware of those matters.

As was pointed out in our earlier debate, a number of the amendments that we are discussing will change the Bill significantly. Some were tabled in response to the raising of issues in Committee, but they are not new issues. Organisations and people out in the real world who will be affected by the Bill have doubtless been raising them with the Government ever since the announcement that it was to be introduced. As other Members have said, it is a shame that it has taken us from the beginning of the Committee stage until a fairly crowded Report stage to address some of them.

Let me deal with the new clauses and amendments in turn, as was done by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones). New clause 9 is welcome in that it delineates a little more clearly which highway schemes would be given to the IPC to decide and consult on. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West rightly pointed out that the Local Government Association has lobbied heavily on that issue. Indeed, its chairman gave evidence to us before the Committee stage. He said that the LGA would be happy with the Government’s proposals, but I must confess that I think that it probably is not. Amendments tabled by me, which I shall discuss later, may be slightly more in accord with the concern expressed by local government about which roads will be involved.

Trunk roads are handled by the Highways Agency and are currently under the aegis of the Secretary of State when it comes to planning decisions. The arrangements are not confined to motorways and other specific kinds of road, which I believe are described as special roads, or special highways, in the Bill. The arrangements include a number of important highways whose construction would have a big local impact, and on which local authorities would want the power to decide. As the Minister has said, such decisions are currently made by the Secretary of State, which returns us to a discussion that we have had before about whether it would be preferable for them to be made by the IPC. As others have said, we shall discuss that more fully later, but I believe that the clarification provided in the new clause—although helpful in explaining the Government’s intent—does not go far enough to deal with concern about the growing role of the IPC.

I do not like the dreadful phrase “mission creep”, although I have yet to come up with a better term; I am sure that older and wiser heads than mine will do so as the debate proceeds. However, I think that the concept it describes is cause for great concern, not just in the context of highways but in relation to a raft of possible IPC decisions, and—as we heard in evidence—the Local Government Association wants that to be restricted.

Amendments Nos. 331 to 338, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), seek to remove trunk roads from the provisions of clause 29, further restricting the application to highways. That clause may, of course, be replaced by new clause 9 today. I do not intend to press our amendments to a Division, but I believe that the Government could do more to meet the concerns expressed by the LGA and others.

New clause 10 tightens the definition of railway applications. I welcome what the Minister said in response to points about, for instance, light rail that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington in Committee. However, as a result of concern expressed by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West about permitted development rights I tabled new clause 38, which I understand will be debated next Monday, and which also deals with the widening of scope.

The Minister spoke at some length about the devolution settlement and about the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has sought to address with his amendment; the aspiration of the Welsh Assembly Government to have a greater say over power generation. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), the Minister said that discussions were continuing, implying that it might be possible to do this without substantially altering the devolution settlement.

Amendment No. 325 seeks to prevent the powers from being transferred to the IPC in the hope that those discussions can continue. I support the concept, not just in terms of my traditional—as it has become during the course of the Bill—antipathy to the IPC. Restricting anything from going to the IPC is worth doing, but in this case the amendment seeks to reserve the possibility of negotiations continuing in future without the added complication of the IPC interfering.

I wish to refer to new clauses 9 and 10, which are self-explanatory and introduce a great deal of clarity into the debate at rather a late stage. Those new clauses clearly assist us in our deliberations, and they are entirely appropriate and acceptable.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) said that he was concerned that there might be a problem if major roadway infrastructure were to be considered for England, when a different authority were considering the matter over the border. I do not see any problem with such an arrangement. A devolution settlement is in place, and transport is largely, if not almost totally, devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. I am sure that this will be a challenge in the future not in any way to be shrugged off by anybody on either side of the border in the best interests of people in England and, of course, in the best interests of the people in Wales. I do not think that using the terminology that we might be left behind in some way is at all helpful, because that will not happen. This will be a challenge, but I have no doubt that Ministers in Cardiff and Ministers in London will liaise carefully on these matters in the best interests of bringing in developments.

I am concerned about the lack of understanding on the 50 MW issue, which we discussed in Committee. The Minister knows that the whole point of amendment No. 325, which stands in the name of several Liberal Democrat Members, is to exclude Wales from this particular aspect of energy creation. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, so I fully support it. He will know that the National Assembly for Wales has considerable powers in respect of major energy projects in Wales, and a winding back on that particular issue seems to be taking place, because offshore generating stations of more than 50 MW will now effectively be called in to be dealt with by the IPC. Many people in Wales, for example, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and some people in government in Wales, are unhappy about that; there is unease not simply in my party, but across the political spectrum, because that unnecessarily complicates matters. I hoped that the Government would accept this amendment earlier, but clearly they are not going to accept it.

The approach being taken creates an inconsistency, and when one looks at that in the context of Welsh planning policy, existing national policy statements, the role and status of planning policy in Wales and the associated technical advice notes for the Wales spatial plan and so on, one sees that the Government could and should have accepted the amendment. It is a lost opportunity. It will be put to a vote today, but it is unlikely to be won, so I hope that the Government will reconsider at some point. It is an unnecessary complication that could be simplified very easily, were the amendment accepted.

Government new clauses 9 and 10 are unobjectionable, as are the consequential amendments. They bring clarity to the Bill, albeit at a rather late stage. I echo what others have said about the considerable amount of work that we need to do today and next week to deal with all the Government amendments, and I shall therefore truncate my remarks on amendment No. 325.

I suppose that it is fair for hon. Members to have a go at me and at the Government over the number of amendments tabled on Report, but it is also reasonable to recognise the complexity of the Bill, and especially of the prize that we are trying to create, which is supported by both sides of the House, of a single consent regime in place of a maze of other consents and pieces of legislation, some dating back 50 years or more. At each stage, if we have heard serious, well argued and evidence-based points that suggest that the framework in the Bill is not adequate or could be clearer or stronger, I have tried to respond. That is largely what we have tried to do in many of the amendments.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) questioned the number of amendments earlier, but I was pleased by the tone that he struck in dealing with this group. He said that it was good to see changes to the highway definitions and thresholds, and I appreciate that. He also gave us credit for listening to views expressed in Committee on railways, and he welcomed the amendments on the power to direct clusters of, for instance, wind farms just below the 50 MW threshold, which appear sensible to several other hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. On cross-border roads, decision making will continue to be split between England, Scotland and Wales, and the English developments that fall within the categories to be determined by the IPC will be determined by it. The schemes that cross borders are now often planned on a whole-network basis. The Highways Agency currently plans for cross-border highways, and it does so in conjunction with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I see no reason why that arrangement, which works reasonably well, cannot continue in the future.

On clusters in Wales, I must be blunt. It is not the case that Welsh Ministers have expressed any enthusiasm for directing wind farm applications in Wales to the IPC, so we have not moved in that direction—

rose—

rose—

rose—

There is an interesting divergence in views from the Welsh perspective on the Opposition Benches. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West first.

I apologise if I gave the impression that the Welsh Ministers were expressing enthusiasm for the IPC process: I am sure that they are not. It just seems to me that the Government are anxious not to disturb the devolution settlement. However, given that it does not extend to onshore wind farms above 50 MW and offshore wind farms above 100 MW, how can it possibly be said that to extend the competency of the IPC, or the single consent process, to such wind farms would disturb the devolution settlement? It clearly would not do so.

I tried to explain when I made my opening remarks that that is an important feature, which is likely to become increasingly important, of the UK’s overall energy supply and energy security. It is not a devolved function. That is why we have taken the view, after quite detailed discussions between the Welsh Assembly Government, the Welsh Office and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, that that is the approach that we should take and that it is consistent with the devolution settlement.

I wanted to respond to something that the Minister said earlier. He gave the impression that Welsh Ministers were in some way arguing against what was proposed in the amendment when they were, in fact, arguing in favour of it, as his brother—his colleague—said in Committee. I say brother, but that is all old Labour-talk now, is it not? In Committee, the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) said:

“I am well aware that Welsh Ministers have argued for the devolution of energy consents of more than 50 MW, and that there have been tripartite discussions”.––[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 334.]

The Minister for Local Government just mentioned those discussions. His colleague went on to say that the Government remain of the view that the situation should be as per the Bill. The Minister for Local Government somehow gave the impression that Welsh Ministers had not argued in favour of the amendment on that subject, when they had done so strongly.

I am under no misapprehension, and I do not think that I have given any cause for misunderstanding, about the approach to the question of consents for 50 MW wind farms that has interested Welsh Ministers. My point, which the hon. Gentleman tried to quote back to me, was about clusters. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West was making a different point about a different amendment on the power of direction to cluster more minor projects together in one single application, rather than the issue that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is concerned about. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done, which I shall come to in a moment.

rose—

rose—

I shall give way again, but I wanted to answer the points that have been made during the debate rather than dealing with a set of fresh points, particularly from those who have only just joined us.

I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being very generous. May I revert to the point that I raised? How would the extension of the cluster procedure to Wales and Welsh wind farms in any sense disturb the devolution settlement?

The question of where we set the threshold for wind farms has been set in the context of looking at the UK’s energy security and energy supply strategy, which is a reserved power. The 50 MW threshold is the appropriate way to reflect what need to be, nevertheless, a range of planning responsibilities that are properly devolved and should properly remain devolved in Wales. That is the approach that we have taken.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West asked why only railways will have permitted development rights. We are protecting all permitted development rights in the Bill, but the railways are explicit, because of the drafting of how we will deal with the thresholds. In addition, the Highways Agency has the power to carry out similar types of works via an administrative order. That is the equivalent for highways of the permitted development rights for railways. Ports and airports have explicit numerical thresholds for those works and so, if the hon. Gentleman likes to see it that way, the permitted development rights for ports and airports are preserved in our proposed approach.

On the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), I tried earlier—I shall not repeat myself—to deal with the intent behind the highways amendments and the approach to the question of cycle paths and the definition of trunk roads. I understand the Local Government Association’s general concern, but since 2001 the Department for Transport has detrunked 175 sections of road and thereby passed them to local authority control. More of those are in the pipeline. The DFT specifically welcomed and invited suggestions of where other trunk roads might be passed to local authority control. Finally, the DFT has confirmed that it plans to consult during the summer on local highways consents under the Highways Act 1980 that could be passed to lower tiers of government. Rather than decision making being taken further out of the hands of local authorities, we are not changing any of the consents at present. This is part of a number of steps that the Department is quite rightly considering to put more under local control.

I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the agreements, including voluntary ones, that are currently in place at Heathrow. I have tried to explain the intent of the definition that we propose. He is quite right to say—in particular, before we get to the debate next week—that it is important to be precisely clear about that. I will review tomorrow the Hansard record, and if I feel that what has been said is not complete and clear enough, I will certainly write to him to ensure that he has the information that he is looking for.

I would be grateful if that letter were received before the debate on Third Reading, because I would welcome the opportunity to read that correspondence into the parliamentary record.

If I judge that there is a need to write to my hon. Friend, I will do so this week, and he will receive the letter this week.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) returned to what he described as the lack of understanding on the 50 MW wind farm issue. He produced his amendment in Committee before the Liberal Democrats produced theirs, and he has expressed concerns about the issue. I have tried to explain to him that there may well be unease or unhappiness in Wales, but there is emphatically no winding back, as he described it, of the provisions and the devolution settlement in relation to Wales in our approach.

Government amendment No. 88 relates to provisions in the Coast Protection Act 1949 that largely deal with the content of development consents, which we can discuss more fully in conjunction with proposals in the third group of new clauses and amendments, and that is what I propose to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Railways

‘(1) Construction of a railway is within section 13(1)(j) only if—

(a) the railway will (when constructed) be wholly in England,

(b) the railway will (when constructed) be part of a network operated by an approved operator, and

(c) the construction of the railway is not permitted development.

(2) Alteration of a railway is within section 13(1)(j) only if—

(a) the part of the railway to be altered is wholly in England,

(b) the railway is part of a network operated by an approved operator, and

(c) the alteration of the railway is not permitted development.

(3) Construction or alteration of a railway is not within section 13(1)(j) to the extent that the railway forms part (or will when constructed form part) of a rail freight interchange.

(4) “Approved operator” means a person who meets the conditions in subsections (5) and (6).

(5) The condition is that the person must be—

(a) a person who is authorised to be the operator of a network by a licence granted under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (licences for operation of railway assets), or

(b) a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company which is such a person.

(6) The condition is that the person is designated, or is of a description designated, in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(7) In this section—

“network” has the meaning given by section 83(1) of the Railways Act 1993;

“permitted development” means development in relation to which planning permission is granted by article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995;

“wholly-owned subsidiary” has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 2006 (see section 1159 of that Act).

(8) The reference in subsection (7) to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 is to that Order as it has effect immediately before the day on which this section comes fully into force.’.—[John Healey.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 13

Nationally significant infrastructure projects: general

Amendments made: No. 77, page 7, line 14, leave out

‘the construction or alteration of an airport’

and insert ‘airport-related development’.

No. 78, page 7, line 16, after ‘construction’, insert ‘or alteration’.—[John Healey.]

Amendment proposed: No. 325, in page 8, line 12, clause 14, leave out ‘or Wales’.—[Dan Rogerson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 17—Rights in connection with underground gas storage facilities.

Government new clause 18—Public rights of way: statutory undertakers’ apparatus etc..

Government new clause 19—Extinguishment of rights, and removal of apparatus, of statutory undertakers etc.

Government new clause 26—Interpretation: land and rights over land.

Government new clause 37—Application of compulsory acquisition procedure provisions.

Government amendments Nos. 116 to 151, 153 to 157, 93 to 96, 101, 102, 186, 187, 252, 255 and 269.

This set of amendments largely makes technical changes to ensure that the provisions of part 7 of the Bill work correctly on the issues of compulsory acquisition of land—in particular, the compulsory acquisition of specially protected categories of land known as “special land”, and including common land. The definitions can be found in part 7 of the Bill.

Please excuse me for sounding a bit like a bingo caller, but I must refer to a whole raft of small technical amendments. New clauses 17 and 26, amendments Nos. 93 to 96, 101, 102, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 140, 141, 146, 147, 151, 153 to 156, 252, 255 and 269 clarify that development consent orders can authorise the compulsory acquisition of rights over land and compulsorily create new rights over land. I shall address that in a little more detail.

Those new clauses and amendments are necessary to avoid a situation in which a promoter must unnecessarily purchase the whole of a person’s land when all they need is a right over it—or under it, such as the right to store natural gas in the subsoil. The amendments provide flexibility and more options for the developer and land owners. New clauses 18 and 19 give protections for statutory undertakers, such as water companies, gas transporters and mobile phone operators, that have apparatus on land that is to be compulsorily acquired. If those statutory undertakers object to the proposed extinguishment of the right of way on the land or the proposed removal of their apparatus from the land, the Secretary of State who sponsors the relevant statutory undertaker would need to consent to the provisions.

Amendments Nos. 117, 120, 121, 134, 137, 142 and 145 clarify the procedures by which a promoter can propose land as a replacement for special land that it seeks to acquire compulsorily—for example, common land, allotments or statutory undertakers’ land. The Secretary of State can certify that the proposed replacement land is as good as the land that it replaces.

When a promoter intends to acquire compulsorily common land or rights over common land, the amendments clarify that the Secretary of State must notify those interested in the proposal of his or her intention to certify the promoters’ offer of replacement land as acceptable. The amendments also allow the Secretary of State to cause a public inquiry to be held into the proposed package of replacement common land. That strikes us as a common-sense thing to do to ensure fairness.

The provisions are designed to ensure alignment with existing provisions in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. New clause 15 clarifies that the decision maker may authorise the compulsory acquisition of land that was not included in the original application if all affected parties consent, or if specified procedures have been followed. Without that amendment, only land identified in the original application could be compulsorily acquired. It is important to allow the decision maker the flexibility to make changes to the draft order if they believe that a decision to approve could be made only on the basis of a project that requires revisions.

The amendment gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe the procedures to be followed whenever the decision maker wishes to approve additional compulsory acquisition. We believe it is right for the Secretary of State to set the rules when additional compulsory acquisition is envisaged, in order to ensure that human rights and other interests are respected. We anticipate that these procedures would, at a minimum, ensure that the promoter and all interested parties were notified and may make representations, and that the decision maker must take into account any representations and objections made about the proposed changes.

As the Minister has so comprehensively pointed out, this is a series of detailed amendments required to implement the compulsory acquisition regime that is necessary in order to make the unified consent system work. There are a significant number of amendments, and I hope the Minister will not take it amiss if I gently chide him once again for the fact that their provisions were not included in the Bill originally. It was evident from the moment the Bill was published that a regime for compulsory acquisition would be necessary, and it should have been obvious that that regime would have to be detailed. The details that have been supplied in the amendments clearly make up the deficiency that was so manifestly there, and I am glad that they have been tabled.

I shall refer to a number of matters, one of which is the right of persons who will be on the receiving end of a compulsory acquisition order to have their representations properly heard. The power compulsorily to acquire land and interests in land is one of the more draconian powers in the hands of the infrastructure planning commission, and it should therefore be used carefully, sparingly and with sensitivity. It is important that the rights of those whose interests will be affected by a compulsory acquisition order should be properly heard and respected. I am worried that when the procedure for inquiries comes to be considered, we will see that the interests of those who are likely to be affected by compulsory acquisition orders are frequently regarded as not primary in the course of those proceedings and may even be discounted altogether. That is not right. The powers that the Bill gives to the commission are very extensive, and if an individual’s rights are to be usurped in the manner proposed, albeit legally, their interests should be fully heard.

New clause 15 provides that an order authorising compulsory acquisition of land may be made only if, inter alia, “the prescribed procedure” has been followed in relation to the land. I may have missed something—no doubt the Minister will enlighten me—but I wonder where that prescribed procedure is set out. Clause 112 provides that the Secretary of State may issue guidance about the making of an order granting development consent, which includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of land, but that appears to be something less than a prescribed procedure.

I have nothing further to add, save that for my own part I would have been happier if we had stuck with 250 sq yd and imperial measurements.

The Minister was clearly aware of the seemingly dry nature of the part of the Bill that he has been asked to shepherd through and has sought to brighten up the occasion with a tie to keep awake anybody who might be nodding off—and an excellent tie it is, too.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) made some serious points about the rights of people who may find themselves subject to compulsory acquisition of land. I am particularly concerned about a point that was raised in Committee, as the Minister will recall. When land is being offered in lieu of something that is being taken away, how can we be sure that it is a suitable replacement? If it is common land, for example, will it be geographically suitable for the people who would be exercising rights upon it in the way that they have done customarily? Indeed, land that is special for any other purpose or reason should be borne in mind when an alternative piece of land is offered. We also have to consider how the process will be arbitrated. If there are questions about whether the land represents appropriate compensation for what has been taken away, there should be recourse to some sort of negotiation.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West is right to raise the problem whereby if the compulsory acquisition of land is handled at the time of the development consent order, other issues will obscure the importance or severity of it. People in the community affected in other ways, in far greater number, will have the floor to a greater extent than those affected in a small, personal way that is nevertheless important to that individual. The Government clearly had the desire to speed up the process—they have been clear and up front about that throughout—but my concern is that the process should be correct and just and that any acquisition must be entirely necessary. If those matters are obscured in some way and rolled up into the process of development consent, some of them might be overlooked.

I am concerned about some of the changes that are being made, but I welcome the fact that the Government are removing the fog from the proposals and clarifying some of the issues that we explored in Committee.

I have just a couple of points to make. We are talking about placing an immense power in the hands of the IPC, which will affect a large number of people with regard to major infrastructure developments. I refer hon. Members to early potential expansion of Heathrow. The provisions give immense power for compulsory purchase and the forced removal of people. When it comes to Heathrow, the calculations show that anything up to 10,000 people will be removed from their homes, alongside the loss of three schools, community centres and so on. I would welcome information about the financial support and professional assistance that will be given to those who wish to contest a compulsory acquisition. What additional support will be given to local authorities to represent their constituents in such matters?

I have a point of detail with regard to BAA. When the industry was a nationalised one, it had specific powers of compulsory purchase. Once it was privatised, those powers were apparently retained, and I would welcome clarity about the powers that it will have on compulsory acquisition of land after this legislation is passed, and with regard to whether it will have any special status above any other private sector company.

I would like to probe the Minister on the procedure for compulsory acquisition. Following on from what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) said, compulsory acquisition is one of the most severe powers anyone can take to acquire land. Can the Minister clarify what the procedure will be when it becomes clear that the promoter has served notice under new clause 19, or any other provision in the Bill, that compulsory powers are likely to be used? There was some confusion about that in Committee. The Minister said:

“To be clear, people who are subject to compulsory purchase orders as a result of this provision will have exactly the same rights that they have at present.”––[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 150, Q367.]

I want to probe the Minister—my neighbour in Gloucestershire—on the rights that people will have to be heard.

Under the Compulsory Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 made by the Lord Chancellor on 15 December 2007, people had the right to be heard orally and in writing, and they had the right to summon witnesses and to cross-examine them. It would not only be landowners who had that right: under rule 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Projects Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2005, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) in the oral evidence session, others affected, such as parish or town councils, would have the same rights. I seek to probe the Minister on the right that parties affected by compulsory purchase powers will have to be heard and to summon and cross-examine witnesses. Will they have an absolute right, or will they be able to do so only at the discretion of the IPC commissioner?

I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for his kind remarks about my tie. I am inclined to agree that this grouping relates to one of the more detailed and, some would say, drier aspects of the Bill, but it is an important one, as hon. Members have said.

People are particularly concerned about homes—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned those near Heathrow—and under our proposals, those whose homes are subject to compulsory purchase, and other landowners, would have exactly the same rights as they do at present. They would have the same human rights protection as they do now. They will be able to object to a proposal for compulsory purchase, submit evidence to the IPC on why their home should not be purchased and appear at the examination to have their say. As now, they will be able to challenge a decision on compulsory purchase in the courts. Rules on compensation will be the same as now, and disputed compensation will be decided by the Lands Tribunal. The commission would be required to explain how it used powers for compulsory purchase in an annual report to Parliament.

The Minister has skated over the critical point that I raised. Will objectors to compulsory purchase powers have the absolute right to be heard both orally and in writing? Will they have the power to summon witnesses, and will they have the power to cross-examine those witnesses? I am not talking about going to court, but about the IPC procedure. Will such matters be at the discretion of the IPC commissioner hearing the case?

The role of the IPC commissioner is important and we must remember that although the Bill and the legislation set the framework—and not just through the amendments, which are mostly technical—most of the framework policy was already in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was aware of that. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) rightly pointed out that he wants to see more flesh on the bones with regard to the process, as does the hon. Member for North Cornwall, and I was about to refer to that. Although the Bill sets the framework, there will be regulations to provide the detail of the process; we will consult widely on those, and they will have to go through Parliament.

We are coming to the relevant amendments later, but do not the new clauses specifically mean that those who seek to be heard on compulsory purchase alone will not necessarily have the right to be heard by the commissioners?

Those involved in the process will have the mandatory right to submit evidence and attend a hearing on CPO issues. IPC discretion remains, however, as to whether to allow a cross-examination. It is worth remembering that the CPO process, and the amendments that I have just highlighted, goes a little further by adding flexibility and options for developers and landowners. We are talking about land not being subject to a CPO; ideally, the process would take place in a consensual way where there is usage of the land above—for example, it may be necessary to bring in a crane to build infrastructure—or below, as someone may wish to store gas under the soil. I hope that having the extra options that we are introducing through our amendments will result in consensus far more often.

There will be times when there is no consensus and when we will have to use other processes, more of which will be set out in regulations. However, the changes that we have made, not least from listening to members of the Committee, together with what was already in the Bill, provide good safeguards for the owners of land, as well as opportunities to go forward with consensus from both developers and landowners.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very indulgent. His answer has been helpful, but may I press him one more time? I do not want to put words into his mouth, but I think he said that those to whom CPOs will apply, whether they have land or houses, will have an absolute right to appear before an IPC to give evidence either orally or in writing. Can he confirm that I have got that right? Using a CPO to take away someone’s home or land is one of the most draconian powers that a Government can use. It is therefore only correct that there should be a right to appear at the IPC hearing to give evidence orally or in writing.

I thought that I had confirmed that just a moment ago. I hope that that is helpful.

My hon. Friend has not addressed the points that I raised. I should be grateful if he could do so at some stage, if not this evening. I should like information on the continuing powers that BAA may have post-privatisation. In addition, new clause 28, which we shall come to later, relates to access to planning aid—that is, financial support for those who are contesting or wish to be represented—and refers to “planning matters”. I seek clarity about whether such aid would be provided to those who were also contesting an order involving the compulsory acquisition of their property or homes.

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s question about BAA and the changes that would apply. I will seek to provide him with a more detailed answer in writing before we return next week to consider the Bill further.

This group of amendments has been designed to ensure that proposals that include the compulsory acquisition of land are dealt with properly and that correct levels of protection are given to landowners and, as I mentioned, special types of land. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned special types of land, such as common land. I am grateful to hon. Members who suggested helpful changes in Committee, some of which have been implemented in the package of amendments that we are considering. They set out essential technical changes to deal with the acquisition of rights over land and give protections to landowners, statutory undertakers and the users of rights of way. The provisions set out clear rules and procedures to ensure the protection of the rights of those whose land may be compulsorily acquired.

I hope that that answers hon. Members’ questions and gets across the point that we are making changes that are consistent with existing planning law. Those who fear that their homes, businesses or land are about to be CPO-ed will have the processes that already exist, as well as other options that we are bringing forward, which will provide flexibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

Rights in connection with underground gas storage facilities

‘(1) This section applies if—

(a) the development to which an order granting development consent relates is development within section 13(1)(c), and

(b) the order authorises the compulsory acquisition of one or more rights within subsection (2).

(2) The rights are—

(a) a right to store gas in underground gas storage facilities;

(b) a right to stop up a well, borehole or shaft, or prevent its use by another person;

(c) a right of way over land.

(3) If the right within subsection (2) is an existing right to store gas in underground gas storage facilities, this Act has effect in relation to the compulsory acquisition of the right with the omission of section 118.

(4) If the order authorises the compulsory acquisition of the right by the creation of a new right within subsection (2), this Act has effect in relation to the compulsory acquisition of the right with the omission of sections 114 to 119.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Public rights of way: statutory undertakers’ apparatus etc.

‘(1) The following provisions of this section apply if—

(a) an order granting development consent makes provision for the acquisition of land, compulsorily or by agreement,

(b) a public right of way exists over the land,

(c) the right of way is not a right enjoyable by vehicular traffic, and

(d) the right of way is over land falling within subsection (2).

(2) Land falls within this subsection if it is land on, over or under which there is—

(a) apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers, or

(b) electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of an electronic communications code network.

(3) The order granting development consent may include provision for the right of way to be extinguished only if the undertakers or the operator of the network (as the case may be) consent to the inclusion of the provision.

(4) The consent referred to in subsection (3)—

(a) may be given subject to the condition that there are included in the order such provisions for the protection of the undertakers or the operator (as the case may be) as they may reasonably require, and

(b) must not be unreasonably withheld.

(5) Any question arising under subsection (4) whether any requirement or refusal is reasonable is to be determined by the Secretary of State.

(6) The question of which Secretary of State should make a determination under subsection (5) is to be determined by the Treasury, if it arises.

(7) In this section and section [Extinguishment of rights, and removal of apparatus, of statutory undertakers etc.] “statutory undertakers” means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of TCPA 1990.

(8) In this section and section [Extinguishment of rights, and removal of apparatus, of statutory undertakers etc.] the following terms have the meanings given in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 17 to the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)—

“electronic communications apparatus”;

“electronic communications code”;

“electronic communications code network”;

“operator”.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19

Extinguishment of rights, and removal of apparatus, of statutory undertakers etc.

‘(1) This section applies if an order granting development consent authorises the acquisition of land (compulsorily or by agreement) and—

(a) there subsists over the land a relevant right, or

(b) there is on, under or over the land relevant apparatus.

(2) “Relevant right” means a right of way, or a right of laying down, erecting, continuing or maintaining apparatus on, under or over the land, which—

(a) is vested in or belongs to statutory undertakers for the purpose of the carrying on of their undertaking, or

(b) is conferred by or in accordance with the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network.

(3) “Relevant apparatus” means—

(a) apparatus vested in or belonging to statutory undertakers for the purpose of the carrying on of their undertaking, or

(b) electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of an electronic communications code network.

(4) The order may include provision for the extinguishment of the relevant right, or the removal of the relevant apparatus, only if—

(a) the decision-maker is satisfied that the extinguishment or removal is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the development to which the order relates, and

(b) in a case within subsection (5), the Secretary of State has consented to the inclusion of the provision.

(5) A case is within this subsection if a representation has been made about the application for the order granting development consent before the completion of the examination of the application—

(a) in a case falling within subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a), by the statutory undertakers;

(b) in a case falling within subsection (2)(b) or (3)(b), by the operator of the electronic communications code network,

and the representation has not been withdrawn.

(6) The question of which Secretary of State should give consent under subsection (4)(b) is to be determined by the Treasury, if it arises.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

Use of underground gas storage facilities

‘An order granting development consent may include provision authorising the use of underground gas storage facilities only if the development to which the order relates is or includes development within section 16(2), (3) or (5).’.—[John Healey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 21—Harbours.

Government new clause 22—Deemed consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949.

Government new clause 23—Deemed licences under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

Government new clause 24—Removal of consent requirements.

Government amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 152.

Government motion: That Clause 120 be transferred to the end of line 8 on page 65.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 124, page 65, line 22, at end insert—

‘(2) An order granting development consent may include provision authorising an electric line to be kept installed above ground only if the decision-maker is satisfied that no person will be exposed to any risk to their health arising from exposure to electric and magnetic fields with a frequency of between 30 and 300 Hertz.’.

Government amendments Nos. 165 and 250.

Government new schedule 3—Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development.

Government amendments Nos. 270 to 274, 276 and 277.

We come to a series of new clauses, new schedules and amendments that reflect the further work that we have done and our reflection on the points put to us in discussion.

New schedule 3 reworks the provisions of clause 109(4) into a new schedule, thereby clearly setting out the matters that may be included in a development consent order. New schedule 3 contains new matters that go beyond those that were previously contained in clause 109. They include the use of underground gas storage facilities; the carrying out of civil engineering and other works; the charging of fares and other fees; the operation and maintenance of a transport system; entering into an agreement for the provision of police services; the transfer of property, rights, liabilities or functions; and the transfer, leasing, suspension, discontinuance and revival of undertakings. In substance, all those matters are taken from the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964, and the terminology relating to many of them has been imported into the Bill.

Amendment No. 115 also makes it clear that we do not believe it appropriate for the IPC to make provisions that could create byelaws or criminal offences. We recognise that the promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects may wish to have powers relating to penalty fare regimes or the enforcement of the proper use of infrastructure, through prosecution for trespass or the breaking of speed limits, for instance. However, we remain of the view that in such circumstances an application should properly be made to the Secretary of State for a Transport and Works Act order or a Harbours Act order, as currently.

Let me deal with Government new clauses 22 and 23, Government amendments Nos. 165 and 270, and Government amendment No. 88, which was in the first group of amendments that we considered. These measures set out a single or harmonised procedure for dealing with the major consents that are needed for offshore development, which are a consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, or a licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Those consents will be treated differently from other aspects of the single consents regime. The new clauses and amendments will not disapply the need to seek consents under those Acts, but will allow development consent orders from the IPC to deem consents that must otherwise be applied for under those Acts.

We are again debating a large number of extensive and technical amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that the Minister will be glad to hear that I shall not berate him again for the lateness of their appearance. However, there are several matters that I wish to raise.

The Minister discussed new clause 21, which relates to harbours and contains powers providing for the creation of harbour authorities. It also contains powers to change the powers and duties of harbour authorities and to authorise the transfer of property rights and liabilities from one harbour authority to another. Will he comment on the fact that in many cases, applicants for development consent under the proposals in the Bill will be harbour authorities? Is it proposed that in such circumstances the rights in the new harbours would simply be vested in the new harbour authorities, or would further procedures have to be undergone to achieve that transference?

In a previous debate today, I referred to general permitted development rights in the context of railways. At that point, the Minister suggested that although such rights were not specifically mentioned in certain clauses of the Bill, that did not mean that they would not be preserved—for harbour authorities, for example. I should simply like to place on record that I have noted that point, as I have no doubt that others will place reliance on it.

New clause 24 makes this provision:

“An order granting development consent may include provision the effect of which is to remove a requirement for a prescribed consent or authorisation to be granted, only if the relevant body has consented to the inclusion of the provision.”

The relevant body is defined as

“the person or body which would otherwise be required to grant the prescribed consent or authorisation.”

At first sight, that appears to be anomalous, given that clause 31—one of the linchpins of the Bill, and, indeed, of the whole single consent regime—provides for the other sorts of consent that might normally need to be obtained to be dispensed with. Will the Minister please explain the purpose of new clause 24, in the context of the provisions in clause 31? Is there a conflict between the two provisions? At first sight, there appears to be one.

The Minister has also mentioned that the new clauses specifically preclude the imposition of new byelaws or the grant of authority to others to impose such byelaws. Again, that appears strange, given that many of the entities that will be created by the Bill—particularly those covered by this group of amendments, including harbour authorities—will have the right to impose byelaws. Given the wide-ranging, sweeping powers that will be granted to the IPC by the Bill, even to the extent of enabling it to amend primary legislation, it seems odd that the power to confer the right to make byelaws has specifically been excluded. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

New clause 23 provides:

“An order granting development consent may include provision deeming a licence to have been issued under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985”.

That relates, inter alia, to the laying of installations on the sea bed. The deemed licence is limited to England and English waters, or to a renewable energy zone designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area that is part of the Scottish renewable energy zone. Please will the Minister explain why the new clause does not relate to Welsh waters, especially in the light of the fact that large-scale offshore wind developments—a reserved matter—will probably require a licence to be made under the 1985 Act?

Finally, I should like to apologise for the absence from the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). I am sure that he will appreciate the thoughtful and kind way in which the Minister has dealt with his proposed amendments, and I am authorised to say that my hon. Friend would have sought to withdraw them.

As we heard in our debate on the programme motion, we are working under considerable time constraints. We have another two groups of amendments to discuss in the next hour, so I shall not detain the House for long. I simply want to note that another whole area of authorities is being given to this unelected body, which will be able to take decisions on matters such as setting up a new harbour authority, for example. We have already discussed the IPC, the broad range of competencies and skills that its commissioners will need to have, and the information that they will have to contend with. While I suppose that it makes sense to have provisions that will enable development to be considered and put in place at the granting of a development consent order, this will mean that the IPC will have to get to grips with a whole new set of competencies. I am concerned about the organisation’s ability to do these things adequately and properly within the necessary time scales.

I wonder whether the Minister could help the House. Clause 109 contains a long list of what may be included in an order granting development consent. Presumably, those are the really important things, as they will be in the main order. The Minister has tabled new schedule 3 today, which relates to matters ancillary to development. One might assume that those matters were less important, because they are ancillary. In the original clause, there are 26 items, but in the new schedule, there are no fewer than 38. A quick scan of what is included in each of the provisions reveals that the items in the new schedule include carrying out civil engineering or other works, and entering into an agreement for the provision of police services. In addition, item 28 relates to:

“Deeming any such conditions to have been imposed by the Secretary of State under that section.”

Item 29 relates to:

“Deeming a licence under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985…to have been issued”.

Item 30 relates to:

“Deeming any such provisions to have been included in the licence by the specified licensing authority by virtue of that Act.”

I understand why items 31 to 34 were not included in the original provision, but it seems odd to have included them among the ancillary items, because they are important. They include: the creation of a harbour authority; changing the powers and duties of a harbour authority; the transfer of property, rights, liabilities, or functions; and the transfer, leasing, suspension, discontinuance and revival of undertakings.

I think that the Minister said that the list in new schedule 3 was from the Transport and Works Act 1992. I cannot remember the exact wording of the Act. I would be grateful if he could tell us why the list of main items in clause 109 is less inclusive than the list of ancillary items.

A series of important points, some of which I touched on, have been made, but I shall deal with them—I hope adequately—in my response to the debate.

First, I say to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that we believe that what we have under the current regime—the range of provisions that a decision maker, which in this case is the IPC, can include in development consent orders—is the right mix.

Our starting principle has been to try to ensure that, as far as possible, orders that grant development consent cover all the consents and authorisations to proceed—if that is the judgment of the commission and the judgment on the application—necessary for the nationally significant infrastructure project to proceed.

As I described earlier this afternoon, that is one of the important prizes in the overall reforms that we propose in the Bill. However, we believe that two aspects—bylaws in particular and powers to make criminal offences—fall into what I suppose is a different category. We do not believe that, on its own, the IPC should decide such matters, nor should promoters apply simply to the IPC for them to be included in a development consent order. So, we have constructed the Bill in such a way that promoters may continue, as they do now, to apply separately under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964 if they want bylaw-making powers or the powers to create criminal offences for particular reasons related to their project. Government amendment No. 115 applies not simply to harbour developments; it applies to the 1992 Act and the 1964 Act together.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West probed a little further on harbours. New clause 21 allows the inclusion in a development consent order of the creation of a new harbour authority or the revision of provisions governing an existing harbour authority. That is expressed in schedule 2 to the 1964 Act. I did not spell that out before, but these remarks might be helpful because he was probing to find out precisely what that might entail.

The schedule includes such things as the creation of a harbour authority, including the approval of a constitution; the conferring of powers and duties; setting the jurisdiction of the authority and allowing it to ask a justice of the peace to appoint constables; the revision of a harbour authority or the merging of two harbour authorities into one; the transfer of property from one harbour authority to another; the disposal of property vested in a harbour authority; and the charging of tolls, fares and other charges. That is the range of provision in existing legislation that we propose potentially to make available, where it is justified, as part of the single development consent.

On coastal protection, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) wants an assurance, particularly with the Marine Bill in prospect, that there will be no watering down of enforcement powers. Precisely for that reason, we are taking the approach that we are. Rather than make the Bill disapply the need for consents either under the Coastal Protection Act 1949 or under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, we are making the consent a deemed consent precisely so that the full range of enforcement powers under both Acts remains in place and can be discharged.

The amendments delete the references to the 1949 Act, reinserting them as a deemed consent. They also insert in the Bill, for the first time, licences under the 1985 Act, again as deemed licences. We have done that to make the enforcement provisions as strong as they are at present. That gives the Secretary of State the same power to intervene in an emergency to require the owner of infrastructure offshore to take certain actions that may be required to prevent a danger to navigation. However, because those powers are operational only where what is termed a section 34 consent is in place, they will not be operational if a development consent order has disapplied rather than deemed as part of the consent agreement; otherwise, the Secretary of State would lose the powers that he needs at the moment.

To return to the starting point of the hon. Gentleman’s concern, the Marine Bill will rework the regulatory regime for offshore development by streamlining the CPA consents and FEPA licences in a single regime. Uniform enforcement would be facilitated if the IPC deemed consents in respect of offshore nationally significant infrastructure project consents. That is the purpose of our amendment No. 165, clarifying, therefore, the fact that enforcement for those consents is to be carried out under those two existing provisions, which will, in time, be consolidated in the new Marine Bill. Incidentally, they will be enforced through the new marine management organisation.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman was concerned about the breadth of the powers in relation to harbours. I have explained the restrictions under amendment No. 115. I have confirmed that the development consent orders will not allow the creation or modification of bylaws or criminal offences and why we believe that is right. I make it clear to the House that the development consent order for harbours will be able to provide for the creation of the harbour authority only where that is necessary or expedient in relation to a particular harbour nationally significant infrastructure project application.

I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the fact that different items are listed in the Bill and in the proposal that we are making does not make any of those things less important. I tried to explain earlier that we are consolidating what we already have in clause 109(4) in new schedule 3 and adding items that we think are appropriate but that are not yet in that list. That is why the proposed list is longer and more comprehensive, and therefore a better reflection of the matters that may be required within a single development consent order, as well as appropriate for the commission to consider as part of any application, if that is what the promoter decides.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for those helpful remarks, but some of the powers in new schedule 3 are very wide indeed. The basic building block of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 were civil and other engineering works. What safeguards will there be for people who are affected by an IPC decision that those powers are strictly necessary for a development? Will there be any appeal mechanism? Will there be a mechanism for appeal to the courts through judicial review? How will this work?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into territory that we shall deal with at length in debates to come. Essentially, the Bill contains a number of new steps, including, for the first time, a legal duty and requirement on any promoter of an application or a project to consult widely—local councils and local communities—in preparing an application. So, promoters must make clear the degree to which they want to include in a single application elements covering any of those areas as part of the consent application.

: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments Nos. 167 to 183 and 279

: Amendment No. 167 responds to points made in Committee by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), which were also made by his friends in the Law Society. In particular, the hon. Gentleman identified a loophole in clause 135, whereby a local authority could indefinitely extend the period in which enforcement action may be taken against a promoter.

The amendment will allow local authorities to extend the enforcement period by issuing an information notice or seeking an injunction only in the four years following completion of a development or the point at which the breach of any requirements occurred. That changes the current drafting, which removes the four-year time limit for bringing prosecutions in cases in which a local authority has served an information notice under clause 140 every four years, or made an application for an injunction without imposing an extended time limit within which a prosecution must be brought. As members of the Committee will recall, the original drafting allowed the continual submission of information requests to cause the possibility of enforcement to hang over a developer for many years. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for making that clear to us. The amendment will prevent the four-year period from perennially recurring.

New clause 27 and the consequential amendments Nos. 168 to 183 cover a different matter relating to who can take enforcement action. Under part 8, any local authority could initiate such action, whether or not it took place in its local area. We believe that it should be for the authority whose area contains the development to decide whether unauthorised development has taken place and whether enforcement action is necessary. The new clause prevents any old authority, whether or not it is at all close to the development in question, from submitting an objection willy-nilly. It also clarifies which is the relevant local planning authority in areas where district and county authorities overlap. County authorities will have responsibility in the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects involving, for example, hazardous waste.

Amendment No. 279 makes a minor change to the Housing and Regeneration Bill, clause 13 of which sets out the planning functions that can be conferred on the Homes and Communities Agency. That reflects existing powers in relation to English Partnerships. One of the functions is enforcement, under both the Town and Country Planning Act and part 8 of this Bill. However, as the Housing and Regeneration Bill will receive Royal Assent before this Bill, references to the Planning Act 2008 must be removed and added as a consequential amendment on Royal Assent for the Planning Bill.

As I want to raise other matters later, I shall not delay the House for long.

I am delighted that the Government have accepted the objection raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) to the original drafting and tabled their own amendment, which we welcome wholeheartedly. However, I want to make a minor point about the Minister’s reference to the relevant planning authority under new clause 27. He said that the relevant authority in the case of, “for example”, hazardous waste was the county planning authority. I believe that it is the relevant authority exclusively in the case of hazardous waste. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.

I agree with the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that we should use the time available as economically as possible.

I fear that new clause 27 does nothing to help local authorities to deal with the responsibility that they are being given. The power to make decisions on an important scheme will be denied to them, but the responsibility for clearing up any mess will rest firmly with them.

I think it right for local authorities to be responsible for enforcement, but will they have the necessary resources? Some very technical conditions may be imposed. There are excellent planners in local government, but not many in each authority because of recruitment and training difficulties, and not enough of them given the number of applications with which they must deal. Certain authorities will have a huge burden placed on them. Although that does not necessarily relate directly to the specific wording of the new clause, I consider it an important point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it.

As much as it pains me to admit it, the hon. Member for Clwyd, West is quite right. I cannot think of any area other than hazardous waste, so he is correct. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall. I think this is a great opportunity for the IPC and local authorities to work in partnership. As the local delivery agency, the local authority is the right agency to be inspecting nationally significant infrastructure projects. Local authorities have a vested interest, so giving them the power to serve these notices for information, and allowing them to set time frames for changes to be made should a developer not fulfil everything required by the consent, is the right thing to do—

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

My neighbour, the hon. Member for Cotswold, has the habit of intervening just as I am about to sit down. I will let him do so once more.

I am very grateful; the Minister has been generous. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) made a very good point. The enforcement powers are likely to be time consuming and will require a great deal of expertise from senior planning officers. Therefore, small authorities such as my own—the Under-Secretary knows it well—and, no doubt, in North Cornwall will be overstretched in dealing with enforcement issues. Will there be any mechanism whereby they can reclaim costs incurred in taking enforcement measures?

I am not going to get into rewriting Finance Bills here and now in the Chamber. Local authorities, as well as benefiting from some of these big infrastructure projects, will want to play their part in inspecting them to make sure that those involved are adequately doing what is expected of them. The debate about how that will be resourced is for another day.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 134

Breach of terms of order granting development consent

Amendment made: No. 165, in page 68, line 25 , at end insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to sections [Deemed consent under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949](4) and [Deemed licences under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985](4).’.—[Mr. Dhanda]

Clause 135

Time Limits

Amendment made: No. 167, in page 68, line 32, leave out from ‘133’ to end of line 5 on page 69 and insert ‘or 134 after the end of—

(a) the relevant 4-year period, or

(b) if subsection (3) applies, the extended period.

(2) The “relevant 4-year period” means—

(a) in the case of an offence under section 133, the period of 4 years beginning with the date on which the development was substantially completed;

(b) in the case of an offence under section 134, the period of 4 years beginning with the later of—

(i) the date on which the development was substantially completed, and

(ii) the date on which the breach or failure to comply occurred.

(3) This subsection applies if during the relevant 4-year period—

(a) an information notice has been served under section 140, or

(b) an injunction has been applied for under section 144.

(4) The “extended period” means the period of 4 years beginning with—

(a) the date of service of the information notice, if subsection (3)(a) applies;

(b) the date of the application for the injunction, if subsection (3)(b) applies;

(c) the later (or latest) of those dates, if both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) apply.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 136

Right to enter without warrant

Amendments made: No. 168, in page 69, line 8 , leave out ‘if a’ and insert

‘in relation to any land if the relevant’.

No. 169, in page 69, line 10 , leave out ‘any’ and insert ‘the’.

No. 170, in page 69, line 11 , after ‘the’, insert ‘relevant’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 137

Right to enter under warrant

Amendment made: No. 171, in page 69, line 29, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘the relevant’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 140

Power to require information

Amendments made: No. 172, in page 70, line 22, leave out ‘If it appears to a’ and insert

‘This section applies in relation to any land if it appears to the relevant’.

No. 173, line 23, leave out ‘any land, it’ and insert ‘the land.

(1A) The relevant local planning authority’.

No. 174, line 38, after ‘the’, insert ‘relevant’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 142

Notice of unauthorised development

Amendments made: No. 175, in page 71, line 20, after ‘133’, insert

‘committed on or in respect of any land’.

No. 176, line 21, after ‘The’, insert ‘relevant’.

No. 177, line 28, after ‘134’, insert

‘committed on or in respect of any land’.

No. 178, line 29, after ‘The’, insert ‘relevant’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 143

Execution of works required by notice of unauthorised development

Amendments made: No. 179, in page 72, line 3, after fourth ‘the’, insert ‘relevant’.

No. 180, line 14, after ‘the’, insert ‘relevant’.

No. 181, line 34 , leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘the relevant’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 144

Injunctions

Amendment made: No. 182, in page 73, line 2 , after ‘134’, insert

‘in relation to land in the area of the local planning authority’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 145

isles of scilly

Amendment made: No. 183, in page 73, line 9, after ‘Scilly’, insert

‘in relation to land in the Council’s area’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

New Clause 14

Correction of errors in development consent decisions

‘Schedule [Correction of errors in development consent decisions] (correction of errors in development consent decisions) has effect.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 25 —Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent.

Government amendments Nos. 113, 166 and 246.

Government new schedule 2—Correction of errors in development consent decisions.

Government new schedule 4—Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent.

These Government amendments, new clauses and new schedules cover a wide range of areas that we believe will be necessary to ensure that the single consents regime provides real benefits to promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects and to the wider public. In particular, the amendments deal with how a development consent order could be modified at a later date, where changes prove necessary.

Given the size and complexity of nationally significant infrastructure projects, it is almost inevitable that changes to the design of the project may need to be made as construction progresses. The single consents regime would be of little help to promoters, if it were not nimble or flexible enough to allow some changes to be made without forcing the whole project to start all over again from square one. The amendments set out two mechanisms for how this might be done in a manner that is both proportionate to the complexity of the changes and suitable for the task in hand.

The first mechanism relates to the correction of a decision where there is a non-significant error, such as a typo in a decision document—these things happen. The mechanism is intended solely for the correction of clerical errors in the documents. Under the procedure, the appropriate authority may make corrections where it finds that the decision documents do not properly reflect the decision that it reached. The procedures set out are intended to be speedy, while ensuring that all interested parties are notified of corrections the authority intends to make.

As we have heard from the Under-Secretary, these amendments provide a framework for the change of and revocation of orders granting development consent. The IPC, or the Secretary of State if they are the decision-maker, may make a change to a development consent order, if they are satisfied that the change is not material. As we have heard, the application for a change to the order may only be exercised on an application by the original applicant or his successor in title, a person with an interest in the land or any other person for whose benefit the development consent has effect. In the case of an application by someone with an interest in only part of the land, the order may be made in respect of so much of the original land as is affected by the order.

The new schedule also contains a power for the appropriate authority to amend or revoke a development consent order, if that authority is satisfied that the order contains a significant error and it would not be appropriate for the error to be corrected by means of the power to which I have just referred. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate the sort of circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for the error to be corrected by means of the exercise of that earlier power, because although the power may be exercised on an application made by the applicant or his successor in title, it may also be exercised, as we have heard, on an application by any other person with an “interest in the land” or

“any other person for whose benefit the development consent order has effect.”

Thus, this is potentially a draconian power, which could cause enormous loss to the applicant or to the promoter of the project.

As far as I can tell, no provisions are contained in new schedule 4 for representations to be made by any person who may be aggrieved by the revocation of the order. It might be that those will be made pursuant to regulations that will be made when the Bill is enacted, but I would be grateful if the Minister were to confirm that in such a circumstance provisions would be made for representations to be made by a person who is aggrieved or who could be aggrieved by the making of such an order.

The Secretary of State or the commission, whoever is the decision maker, may also change or revoke the order on its own motion if satisfied that the developments, if carried out, would contravene community law. The potentially draconian nature of the power is made clear in paragraph 5, which includes a power

“to require the removal or alteration of buildings”

or

“discontinuance of a use of land”.

We are talking about projects of major national infrastructure, so it is possible, and indeed likely, that the downsides of any revocation of such an order will be enormously expensive.

Paragraph 6(5) provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations about

“the assessment of compensation payable under this paragraph.”

Paragraph 6(1)(c) provides that the loss or damage in question must be “directly attributable” to the change or revocation. Does that refer to pure economic loss, or would other sorts of losses be the subject of compensation? Furthermore, what of loss that is not directly attributable to the change or revocation? I assume from what the Minister has said that such indirect loss would not be the subject of compensation, but it may be difficult to ascertain whether a loss is directly or indirectly attributable. Will the regulations that are to be made make provisions that will be of assistance with regard to disputes that may arise in connection with determining whether a loss is, for the purposes of the Bill, to be regarded as direct or indirect?

Given that that question is of such great significance, it is perhaps surprising that these provisions have only recently been introduced into the Bill. For the reasons that I have just outlined, I am by no means convinced that the procedure that has been set up is entirely watertight, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I have raised.

In the debate on an earlier group of new clauses and amendments, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to the ability of his constituents to sniff out conspiracy. The Minister is trying to persuade the House that these provisions relate more to cock-up than to conspiracy. As with all legislation, we must examine how they might be interpreted not only by those who are advancing the Bill, but by those who may have the opportunity to use the provisions at a future time. I therefore share the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) about whether or not the provisions are drafted tightly enough to ensure that whatever decisions the IPC takes on development consents cannot then be rewritten quite quickly, given that that might have far-reaching consequences for those involved.

Given that I suspect that the number of applications that the IPC will have to deal with will grow beyond the annual number to which we have been told it will grow, and given that we have been discussing the increasing complexity of the things in which the IPC will have to become expert, this matter again highlights that there is a great deal of potential for all those sorts of mistakes to be made. I can see why the Government feel it necessary to introduce this provision, but it does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the whole process.

It is hard to understand why the Planning Bill, having gone through all its procedures thus far, has had a hugely important new schedule incorporated into it at this late stage. The new schedule has far-reaching effects. I cannot think of another Bill containing provisions to correct errors in the way in which this one does. Normally, such significant changes or such significant powers would be available only to a court, but the IPC would be able to say to a promoter, “ Sorry chaps, we got it wrong, and we will correct it now” or, “No, you have to go through the whole thing again.” Under this new schedule, it would depend on a whim as to whether or not the IPC would require the promoter to go through the whole process again. The decision would be arbitrary, which is extraordinary.

I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some indication of the Government’s thinking as to how the provision came about. In what circumstances would he expect the IPC or the Secretary of State making the order to be able to modify that order, and to what scale would that be possible? How serious would the circumstances need to be for the order to be revoked altogether and for the poor old promoter, who would probably have spent many years and many thousands of pounds—probably hundreds of thousands of pounds, or perhaps even millions of pounds—on the project, to have to go through the whole process again. This very serious matter would normally, under other Acts of Parliament, be considered by the courts, so I am not sure why it is being delegated to the IPC or to the Secretary of State.

I shall take a slightly different tack. I anticipate legal challenges regarding paragraph (1) to new schedule 2, which deals with the correction of errors in development consent decisions, in paragraph 2(1) to new schedule 4, which deals with changes to, and the revocation of, orders granting development and so on, and paragraph 3(1) to new schedule 4, which deals with changes to, and the revocation of, orders granting development consent. I cannot understand why the Government cannot find a means of making those corrections without having to put people to the expense of going to court. The last thing that I want is to do my learned friends out of jobs, but should the Bill say that it has to proceed all three cases by way of judicial review, which is a very expensive and often time-consuming process? Why could we not think of some other forum for correcting these cases?

Let us consider the example of the Commons Registration Act 1965, under which a commission was set up. It was normally chaired by a lawyer; people could apply locally to have discussions of this kind determined once and for all; and matters would proceed to the High Court only if the commissioner had misdirected himself or herself or had in some way fallen foul of the 1965 Act. It was a less time-consuming and less expensive procedure, and something along those lines may well lend itself to this part of the Bill. I had not prepared anything on this part of the Bill until now, but I was struck by the fact that the Bill imposes a duty on an individual always to go for judicial review, which, as I have said, is onerous and expensive. Between now and when the Bill finishes its passage through Lords, perhaps the Government will consider another forum, as that might be cheaper, quicker and perhaps more accessible.

The clock may be against us, so I shall write to hon. Members with assurances if I cannot answer their questions. In many respects, these are amendments of last resort. We do not want to see clerical mistakes, but when they occur it is right and proper that we have a system in place for changes to be made with a minimum of consequential problems, so that projects can be completed as quickly as possible—

It being half past Seven o’clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 25

Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent

‘Schedule [Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent] (changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent) has effect.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 108

Legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent

Amendment made: No. 113, in page 55, line 23, at end insert—

‘(3A) A court may entertain proceedings for questioning a decision under paragraph 1 of Schedule [Correction of errors in development consent decisions] in relation to an error or omission in a decision document only if—

(a) the proceedings are brought by a claim for judicial review, and

(b) the claim form is filed during the period of 6 weeks beginning with the day on which a correction notice in respect of the error or omission is issued under paragraph 2 of that Schedule.

(3B) A court may entertain proceedings for questioning a decision under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule [Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent] to make a change to an order granting development consent only if—

(a) the proceedings are brought by a claim for judicial review, and

(b) the claim form is filed during the period of 6 weeks beginning with the day on which notice of the change is given under paragraph 2(7)(b) of that Schedule.

(3C) A court may entertain proceedings for questioning a decision under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule [Changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent] to make a change to, or revoke, an order granting development consent only if—

(a) the proceedings are brought by a claim for judicial review, and

(b) the claim form is filed during the period of 6 weeks beginning with the day on which notice of the change or revocation is given under paragraph 4(5) of that Schedule.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 134

Breach of terms of order granting development consent

Amendment made: No. 166, in page 68, line 25, at end insert—

‘(1B) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that—

(a) the breach or failure to comply occurred only because of an error or omission in the order, and

(b) a correction notice specifying the correction of the error or omission has been issued under paragraph 2 of Schedule [Correction of errors in development consent decisions].’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 190

Orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 246, in page 116, line 40, at end insert—

‘(aa) a power to make changes to, or revoke, an order granting development consent;’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

New Clause 8

Parliamentary requirements

‘(1) This section sets out the parliamentary requirements referred to in sections 5(4) and 6(4).

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament.

(3) In this section “the proposal” means—

(a) the statement that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Act, or

(b) (as the case may be) the proposed amendment.

(4) Subsection (5) applies if, during the relevant period—

(a) either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or

(b) a committee of the House of Commons makes recommendations with regard to the proposal.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the resolution or recommendations.

(6) The relevant period is the period specified by the Secretary of State in relation to the proposal.

(7) The Secretary of State must specify the relevant period in relation to the proposal on or before the day on which the proposal is laid before Parliament under subsection (2).’.—[John Healey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (2) at end insert

‘once the consultation and publicity requirements detailed in section 7 have been complied with’.

New clause 1—Climate change—

‘(1) A statement may only be designated under section 5 if the Secretary of State is satisfied that (taken as a whole) the policies in the statement contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

(2) A statement designated under section 5 must contain a statement to the effect that it is the Secretary of State’s view that the requirement of subsection (1) is satisfied.’.

Amendment No. 52, in clause 5, page 3, line 6, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment No. 53, page 3, line 8, at end insert ‘, and

(c) has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.’.

Government amendments Nos. 72 to 75.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 7, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

‘(4A) The Secretary of State must consult with such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be able to advise appropriately on the risks to health arising from the policy set out in the national policy statement.’.

Amendment No. 54, in clause 9, page 5, line 16, at end insert

‘, including the reduction of and adaptation to climate change’.

Amendment No. 67, in page 5, line 32, leave out Clause 11.

Government amendment No. 76

Government new clause 35—Application to Parliament.

Amendment No. 1, in clause 97, page 49, line 26, at end insert—

‘(d) the desirability of contributing to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.’.

Government amendments Nos. 184 and 185.

A substantial amount of time was set aside in the programme motion for the discussion of this group of amendments, which deals with issues relating to national policy statements, Parliament and climate change. I shall set the scene for hon. Members, which I hope will be helpful, as the group covers a lot of ground.

Government new clause 8 and consequential amendments Nos. 72 to 76 would provide for a parliamentary process for the scrutiny of new national policy statements. Amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), would change the time sequence in new clause 8, and amendments Nos. 52 and 53 would require both Houses to approve national policy statements before they could be designated.

Government new clause 35 applies this Bill to Parliament. New clause 1 and amendment No. 54 seek to add a duty on the Secretary of State to address climate change when designating or reviewing a national policy statement, and amendment No. 1 seeks to add a duty on the infrastructure planning commission to have regard to climate change. Amendment No. 3 would require consultation with organisations to seek advice on the risks to health arising from the policy in national policy statements, and amendment No. 67 would remove clause 11 and thereby the provision to designate pre-existing statements of policy as national policy statements. Finally, Government amendments Nos. 184 and 185 deal with the issue of blight in relation to national policy statements.

National policy statements are an important innovation and the foundation of the proposed new system. The Secretary of State would produce national policy statements for strategic development of essential infrastructure investment to ensure that there was a clear, strong policy framework for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects. They would help to ensure a national debate about, and conclusions on, the infrastructure that the country needs. They would provide the primary framework for the IPC’s consideration of applications for individual projects for energy, transport, water, waste water or waste infrastructure. They would set the complete policy framework relevant to decision making, integrating all the important and relevant environmental, social and other aspects of policy.

The commission would not be able to take decisions on a project unless there was a relevant national policy statement designated and in place. NPSs will be important, serious and significant documents. They will therefore undergo an appraisal of their sustainability, will be subject to public consultation and will be scrutinised by Parliament, to ensure that all elements of the policy are appropriate. The IPC will then base its consideration and decisions on the policy set out in the NPS, weighed against domestic and European law, and the possibility or evidence of any adverse impacts on local areas as a result of the application going ahead.

The exact form of national policy statements would vary by sector. The Bill makes it clear that some existing policy statements could become, or serve as, the basis for national policy statements, but only if they meet the standards set out in the Bill for national policy statements. Those standards include a proper appraisal of sustainability, proper public consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Government new clause 8 and consequential amendments are among the most significant amendments tabled on Report. They provide for a new system of parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements, which we see as the cornerstone of our new system. When the Bill was first introduced, we made a commitment to ensuring a stronger role for Parliament. We encouraged the House to consider setting up a Select Committee as part of that process, and suggested that it might be drawn from the expertise of the four relevant departmental Committees—the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Transport Committee, the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We suggested that it could scrutinise draft NPSs in parallel with public consultation. We undertook that a Secretary of State would consider the Committee’s reports together with responses from the public consultation and would revise draft NPSs before designating them. In addition, if the Committee recommended that an NPS raised issues that should be debated by Parliament, we would make Government time available for such debate before the designation of an NPS.

I recognise, of course, that it is ultimately for the House itself to decide what procedures are appropriate for each NPS. These procedures will need to respect the demands on the time of Members and the House. However, they will need three hallmarks to be successful. First, they will need to be sufficiently flexible to deal with both new NPSs and future amendments to existing NPSs. Secondly, they will need to be timely, without undue delay in establishing NPSs as the Government’s strategic framework for nationally significant infrastructure. Thirdly, they will need to be proportionate to the issues raised. It is conceivable, for example, that a future amendment to an NPS may be relatively limited, and we therefore need a system that can respond to that.

I have had constructive and detailed discussions with the Chairs of the four Committees that I mentioned, and I pay tribute to them. Their Clerks have also provided significant and valuable advice. I have also ensured that we have kept in touch with other Committees, such as the Welsh Affairs Committee, through the Liaison Committee, to explore the potential for a process that will meet the proper role of this House in subjecting these policy statements to sufficient scrutiny. We have had three meetings, helpfully hosted by the Leader of the House, that have taken us a long way towards finding an approach that is workable and effective. I am grateful to those involved and to the House authorities for the time, consideration and expertise that they have devoted to that process.

Together with the Chairs of the Select Committees, we have developed a possible process for Committee examination of national policy statements. Examination would be by either one of the relevant existing departmental Select Committees or a single new Committee drawn from their membership and expertise. That decision would be a matter for the Select Committees, via the Liaison Committee, and not for Government. The Committee would examine the draft national policy statement, largely parallel to public consultation, but there would be a period after the closure of the public consultation in which the Committee could take into account any significant issues that had been raised during that consultation. The Government have undertaken to ensure that briefing and information on those issues is made available immediately to the Select Committees, so that that they can do that. The Committee would then report with recommendations to the Secretary of State—

The House.

In fact, the Secretary of State would look to that report, which would formally be a report to the House, of course, and would make time available, if necessary, for debate, if the Committee recommended it.

We propose that the Government would then consider what change was needed to the draft national policy statement in the light of the views expressed in this House and in the public consultation, and we would then revise the draft as appropriate and as necessary.

The point that my hon. Friend is making relates to my amendment (a) to new clause 8, in which I suggest that parliamentary scrutiny should come after the period of public consultation. My hon. Friend is now apparently saying that there would be an overlap period, and that time would be available after public consultation when the appropriate Committee in the House would be allowed to consider the results of that consultation before concluding its report on the policy statement. Can he give us some idea of the likely time periods involved in the process? They might not be firmed up at present, but it would be useful to have some indication of his thinking at this stage.

I have discussed with the Select Committee Chairs—we have not formalised or finalised the proposal—an overhang or continuation period of perhaps four to six weeks to enable the Select Committee to take any additional account that might be necessary of the significant issues raised during the public consultation in its inquiry into and examination and scrutiny of the Government’s proposals.

We considered the proposal for an entirely sequential process, but two factors determined our view that the other approach would be better. First, we did not want to extend the period in which the national policy statements would be put in place for any longer than was necessary. Secondly, as a Government we want to be able to make any substantial revisions that might be required to a national policy statement in the light of the views of the public and Parliament and of any assessment of the sustainability appraisal that might be required. In other words, we want to bring all the relevant matters, observations and views from Parliament and public consultation together in one revision, rather than having to revise the statement at least twice, as would be the case if we had an entirely sequential process. I hope that the further information that I have been able to share with the House and with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe may persuade him that amendment (a) is not necessary at this point, but that its aim can be achieved. The Select Committee Chairs are confident that it can be achieved, too.

Although I am personally sorry that Parliament has not been given the chance to vote on the national policy statements, I am very grateful to the Minister and the Leader of the House for the sympathetic way in which they treated the Select Committees’ concerns. New clause 8 certainly represents a great step forward, which we welcome, although we would like the vote on national policy statements.

May I ask the Minister one specific question of some importance? Am I right to believe that new clause 35 is simply intended to apply planning law to Parliament and is not intended to set aside article 9 of the Bill of Rights or to allow the courts to evaluate the Select Committee reports or resolutions of the House provided for in new clause 8? Those are very important matters for the privilege of this House.

The hon. Gentleman is right. That new clause has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure, the scrutiny of national policy statements or constitutional matters. It simply deals with the situation in which a potentially nationally significant infrastructure project might relate to parliamentary land. It is akin to the provisions in the Bill for Crown land. Next Monday, we are set to discuss those provisions, including the safeguards that will be in place. It might be better to pick up the matter at that point. I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he has requested.

Let me return to whether there is a case for national policy statements to be approved by both Houses. In the end, we took the view that although national policy statements were important documents that would form the basis of decisions by the new infrastructure planning commission, they are ultimately documents that set out the Government’s policy. They are not primary or secondary legislation. It is generally the case in this House that Government decide policy and Parliament scrutinises it as appropriate.

Given that the policy statements are policy documents, they are closer to planning policy statements or super-White Papers, which are not subject to parliamentary approval, than to legislation, which is. I have to say to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who will try to make the case for amendments Nos. 52 and 53, that I do not see a ready-made model or suitable precedent for a binding vote on such statements of policy. Unlike with legislation, we could be taken into unprecedented and problematic territory if the two Houses were to take a different view of the policy that might be contained in a national policy statement.

I am listening carefully to the Minister, and want just to put one point to him. The policy, as he refers to it, is obviously created by Government. It then becomes, I suppose, planning policy guidance, which is not legislation but has the force of law and is as far-reaching as any piece of legislation that we could devise in this place. Planning policy guidance decides whether a planning development goes forward or not, with all the consequences of either decision. Although he is saying that they should not come before Parliament, my point is that the policy statements are very far-reaching indeed.

The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is precisely why we propose the new system in the Bill for the proper scrutiny of such national policy statements. However, they are policy statements, not legislation. Although they may be more akin to planning policy statements, we are proposing a formal system that is rooted in the House and assured in a way that we do not currently have for planning policy statements.

Let me spell out the provisions. The new clause will require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft national policy statement or an amendment of a policy statement and, subsequently, to lay before Parliament a statement that sets out the Government’s response to any resolution of either House or any recommendation of the Committee of the House of Commons about the proposals in the national policy statement, and to do so within a relevant period. It will require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the final national policy statement.

The new clause recognises the interest of both Houses in such issues. It will formalise both the Secretary of State’s relationship with both Houses and the Secretary of State’s response to them. However, it also specifically recognises the nature and expertise of the departmental Select Committees in this House, rather than the other place.

Government amendments Nos. 72 and 76 will make consequential changes. They specify that a new national policy statement that has been reviewed or amended cannot be designated unless the parliamentary requirements set out in the Bill have been met and that the final national policy statement or amended NPS must be laid before Parliament.

Government amendment No. 76 will amend clause 11, which deals with the designation of policy statements made before the commencement of the Act, and clarifies that when deciding whether to designate a policy statement as an NPS, the Secretary of State can take account of the parliamentary scrutiny that was previously undertaken in relation to the statement to determine whether it meets the standards laid down by the Act.

Before hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, see a conspiracy, let me say that, essentially, the pre-commencement provision is principally designed to deal with a situation in which a Secretary of State might want to get on with the process of publishing a draft national policy statement, perhaps on renewal energy, in advance of the formal commencement of the Act. As I have made clear before, any national policy statement could be designated only if the specific requirements for the appraisal of sustainability, for the public consultation and for parliamentary scrutiny were all fully met. However, the provision could allow the process to start before the formal commencement of the Act.

The practical example that Ministers gave when we debated this matter in January was the aviation White Paper being converted into a national policy statement. Will the Minister clarify whether in his view the process by which the aviation White Paper was developed and the subsequent period that has elapsed mean that it would meet the requirements of the legislation to be converted into a national policy statement?

My hon. Friend’s concern about the aviation White Paper fits into a different category. The White Paper went through consultation in 2003. If that were to be the basis of a national policy statement in the future, that potential NPS would have to meet the three criteria that we have set out in the Bill and that I have explained to the House today. The appropriate time at which that may be considered is likely to be some time between 2009 and 2011, when we have undertaken to review the aviation White Paper. However, unless and until there is a national policy statement on aviation, the operation of the IPC in relation to any application for significant airport development that meets the thresholds in the Bill could not come into play. I hope that that helps to reassure my hon. Friend and that it underlines the fact that the pre-commencement provisions relate principally to the situation that I described earlier, rather than to his concern about the aviation White Paper or indeed, arguably, to the consideration of something like the waste strategy, which has been published already and could conceivably become the basis of a national policy statement on waste.

I am sorry to press the Minister for absolute clarity. In his response, does he mean that any development that involves aviation expansion could not be considered by the IPC on the basis of the aviation White Paper but would have to wait until the national policy statement was developed, or is he saying that the IPC could consider any expansion proposal on the basis of the aviation White Paper because no NPS is in place?

No, the IPC could consider an application for a major development in the aviation field only if a national policy statement was in place. Unless and until an aviation national policy statement is in place, the IPC could not operate under the terms of the new system.

I am sorry to press the Minister again. I therefore return to the original question: does the process by which the aviation White Paper was arrived at satisfy the requirements set out in the Bill for its immediate conversion into a national policy statement?

That would have to be a judgment that was taken, but we are setting out in the Bill three very clear conditions, including on parliamentary scrutiny, which has not been in place before. That may therefore imply an answer to my hon. Friend’s question. Any view of making the aviation White Paper the basis of a national policy statement on aviation would mean that that proposed national policy statement would have to be produced and undergo the parliamentary scrutiny process, which we have set out and which I have explained, as well as the processes for public consultation and for a tough appraisal of its sustainability. Only if it meets the criteria in those three respects could it then become designated as a national policy statement.

rose—

My hon. Friend has had three goes. There are a number of other issues, and number of other hon. Members are keen to make their own points in the debate, but I will give way one more time.

I just want to make this explicit: the aviation White Paper did not come with a sustainability appraisal or parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, it could not be converted into a national policy statement and the IPC could not consider an application for aviation expansion on that basis.

My hon. Friend draws his very clear conclusions from the very clear explanation that I have set out for the House.

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again, and I genuinely intend to be helpful. Surely, any such restatement of the White Paper as a national policy statement would require the full process of scrutiny, so there is not a real issue.

In a rather shorter way, the hon. Gentleman says exactly what I was trying to say.

The Minister has made it quite clear that the IPC cannot operate in the absence of a policy statement on a submission or application. Will he therefore say when he thinks that the first of those policy statements will be rolled out, bearing in mind that the Select Committees involved will have a considerable amount of work to do, because the first scrutiny is likely to be the most time-consuming? When are the first national policy statements likely to be rolled out, and when will the IPC be in a position to operate?

I would expect the first draft national policy statements to be produced and proposed by Secretaries of State this year. It is therefore necessary to put in place the pre-commencement provisions that I have mentioned.

In case my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) feels that I have not gone the whole hog, let me explain that my job as the midhusband of the Bill is to produce a new system for dealing with large planning projects. That system will be based on new national policy statements. I have explained the criteria that must be met, and the processes that have to be undergone, for national policy statements to be put in place.

In the end, it is not for me to judge or decide whether a policy paper has undergone those processes; that is the responsibility and a matter for the judgment of the relevant Secretary of State, and they will have to explain the view that they take. If, in their judgment, there has not been the sustainability appraisal, parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation that national policy statements require under the Bill, it is their responsibility to put in place measures to ensure that that is changed. If no national policy statement is formally designated and in place, the IPC cannot decide on a major application. It could examine the application, but it would be for the Secretary of State to make the decisions on the application, as is the case now. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with that; I have to say that I do not feel that I can go much further on that point.

Together, the new clause and the amendments in the group fulfil our commitment to provide for parliamentary scrutiny. They take the significant step of setting that out in legislation. That was done with the encouragement of the Select Committee Chairmen, who were keen for us to do it. I hope that the House will agree that the provisions set out significant, innovative arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny, and ensure that Parliament has a strong say, and a strong influence, on any future national policy statement. I hope that at the end of the debate, in light of what has been said, the hon. Member for Beckenham will not feel it necessary to press her amendments to a Division.

I shall now speak rather more briefly, because I recognise the level of the House’s interest in the issues covered by this group of amendments. Through amendments Nos. 184 and 185, we have introduced provisions to deal with the blight that could be produced by a national policy statement, a proposed major project application or an order granting authorisation for compulsory purchase. Those are important provisions that give protection to people who may be affected.

New clause 1 and amendment No. 54 seek to give the Secretary of State a specific duty to consider climate change when designating or reviewing national policy statements. Amendment No. 1 would add climate change as a factor in the decision-making framework for the IPC, which makes the decisions. I hope that Members recognise that since the publication of the Bill, there has been development of the position set out in the White Paper.

Our objectives in relation to sustainable development are central to the consideration of future infrastructure needs. That is clearly sensible and necessary for the future of the country, whatever the infrastructure that we are talking about. That is why the Bill includes a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that national policy statements are drawn up with the objective of contributing to sustainable development. That is why national policy statements will have to be consistent with all relevant European Union law, including the habitats directive, and domestic law, including the Climate Change Bill, which will place tough duties on the Government to tackle the issues of climate change. That is why, before designating a national policy statement, Ministers must carry out an appraisal of their sustainability. The process will also apply to revisions of national policy statements, where the policy is materially affected.

Where the EU strategic environmental assessment directive applies, we will carry out an appraisal of sustainability that will cover all the obligations in the directive, but that directive may not apply to some national policy statements, so it is necessary to have a strong assessment framework that will apply to all statements to ensure that environmental objectives in particular, and also social and economic objectives, are properly factored into the development. That is the principle, purpose and thinking behind our approach.

The planning White Paper included a policy commitment to consider climate change when national policy statements are being developed, and we have delivered on that by requiring an appraisal of sustainability for every national policy statement, in which climate change will be considered. The new regime will also be subject to the provisions of the Climate Change Bill, when they are finally settled and put into statute. That Bill imposes a general duty on Ministers to meet carbon budgets, and to publish proposals and policies for meeting them. The Climate Change Bill will put strong measures in place, and strong duties on Government, to tackle climate change, and I would therefore argue that it is not appropriate or necessary to place a specific duty of that sort on the Secretary of State in the Bill, particularly not before the Climate Change Bill’s provisions are made clear and passed by the House.

On amendment No. 1, as I have said, the issue of climate change is dealt with in the requirement to prepare an appraisal of sustainability for national policy statements. That appraisal will be published alongside a draft national policy statement. That will be part of the public consultation that any national policy statement will have to undergo, and part of the parliamentary scrutiny of the statement.

The effect of requiring the IPC to make judgments on the issue of climate change will be to increase the scope of its discretion, but it would be more appropriate for the issue to be dealt with thoroughly by the Secretary of State, with consultation in public and scrutiny in Parliament, when preparing and designating the national policy statement. Requiring the IPC to give a view on a specific issue is likely to introduce additional uncertainty into the process, and it could slow down the decision-making process. It is inconsistent with the approach that we are trying to take in the new system.

I hope that I have set out the thinking behind the significant Government amendments and new clauses, and that I have been able to explain our approach on some of the issues on which hon. Friends and Opposition Members have tabled amendments. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

I am grateful to the Minister for being so clear on all the amendments tabled by the Government, by Labour Back Benchers and by the Opposition parties. As he said, national policy statements are one of the core aspects of the Bill. In principle, the official Opposition have no difficulty with the policy on national policy statements. We think it is a positive way forward to try to deal with the crumbling infrastructure that we will probably face when we get into government, and we will get on with it a lot more quickly than the present Government have.

There is agreement across the House that we never want to see again lengthy planning inquiries such as Sizewell and terminal 5—examples that have been given throughout our discussion of the Bill. That is a given. The difficulty arises from the status of national policy statements. The Minister clearly said that he saw them as Government statements. He agreed that they were the equivalent of planning policy guidance. We see them as being so important that they need to be voted on substantively by the House.

That is crucial, because the British public believe in the primacy of Parliament. If Parliament has agreed to a policy, there will be fewer challenges in principle as the statements come into use. The problem with national policy statements being Government statements is that that opens the possibility of extensive judicial review, based on all aspects of the policy statements. Hence, the objective on which we are all agreed—the speeding up decisions on infrastructure—will be frustrated by continual judicial review. That is the core reason why we tabled amendments Nos. 53 and 52 and why I will press them to a Division, if that is appropriate, in due course.

I can sympathise with the argument that the House should have a vote on policy statements, but is the hon. Lady really committing a future Conservative Government to giving a veto to a second Chamber, in whatever form it is comprised in due course, over the policy statements that that Government will issue?

I was about to move on to the text of our amendment. I am happy to accept, as the Minister pointed out, that the proposal would be a new and unique way forward, and I was about to congratulate him on the work that he and our Select Committee Chairman have done in developing a form of consideration of national policy statements that meets the Government’s criteria. That suggests to me that it is not beyond the ability and skills in the House to create a formula for national policy statements to get full parliamentary approval.

I am happy to admit that our amendment is not as detailed as the hon. Gentleman or the Minister might like, but the key for us is the principle that Parliament should own policy statements. That is the difference between us on the issue, and it is the reason I was less than complimentary about the programme motion. As a result of that, we have less time to deal with one of the more important issues than we had to deal with aspects that were important but uncontroversial.

I want to discuss new clause 1 and amendment No. 1, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. To continue where the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) left off, it is important that we have this debate, because if we are changing the planning system at this time, we must recognise that climate change is in every part of our life from now on. Given that planning has a huge impact on our future as well as our present, it is somewhat strange that the Government are nervous about bringing forward a duty not only on the Secretary of State but on the IPC, which may have a more indirect impact but could in many respects be more important as regards how it sets the precedent for major developments. If the Government fail in any way to take account of climate change there will be, at best, a lost opportunity.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the time that he has spent with us. I hope that it has been an interesting discourse. We have learned some things on our side of the argument, and I hope that he has learned some things on his side. This is not a debate that sits in isolation. Given that this Government have pushed the boat out in more ways than one with the Climate Change Bill, the Energy Bill and the forthcoming marine Bill, it is disappointing to fall at the last hurdle when some of us wish to push things to a point whereby everybody is clear that the Secretary of State and the IPC, whoever those people may be in future, have an obligation on them to have due regard to climate change. It is even stranger that what central Government are abdicating from is expected from local government. In the local development frameworks, it is writ large that local authorities must have every regard to climate change in terms of how they progress their planning policies.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and further reinforce his argument by saying that the Government of Wales Act 2006 placed a duty on the National Assembly for Wales to act in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. If it was good enough for that Bill, it should be good enough for this one.

That is an excellent point that is very helpful to my argument. If it is good enough for Wales, it is good enough for England and for our planning policies.

This is not just about joined-up government, with different bits of legislation that need to interact, but joined-up action. If we seriously expect the general public to treat climate change as the overwhelming issue of our time, not writing it into national policy statements across the board seems to be a strange way to go about things. At best, it is a lost opportunity. The Minister put his arguments in such a mellifluous way that some of us could be tempted by them. There was charm and certainly a degree of cleverness in the way in which he induced support that may not have initially been there in relation to other aspects of the Bill.

My problem, which I suspect is shared by those who signed up to new clause 1 and amendment No. 1, is that matters change and people move on. It could be implied that something lies behind the words, in the underlying spirit of the legislation, but when it is taken up in the light of day, people forget about such things. They say, “Well, it wasn’t quite like that. If you read the Minister’s response to the debate, you find that he didn’t necessarily say that climate change should be the overwhelming issue that underwrites all of the national policy statements.”

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that while it is obviously appropriate for national policy statements to address climate change, when it comes to the crunch in the individual application, the detail cannot possibly be encompassed in anything as broad as such a statement? The matter must be addressed by the IPC in the robust way suggested by my hon. Friend. The only way to ensure that that happens is to give the IPC responsibility to do so.

I agree with that, and I shall deal with amendment No. 1 in a bit more detail in a moment. My hon. Friend is at the crux of subsection (2) of the new clause. Obviously, one change is consequent on the other, but they could have been dealt with as we have debated the changes to the Bill.

I want to pose a particular dilemma. I like the terminology “sustainable development”. I was partly responsible for the private Member’s Bill that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) introduced, and we had a lot of debates on what we mean by sustainable development. We might think that the term must include climate change, but there is a danger if climate change is not categorically referred to in the Bill. There is always some clever lawyer somewhere who can define “sustainable development” as not necessarily having to take due account of climate change. That is why some of us feel strongly that such wording should be in the Bill, that there should be a duty placed on the Secretary of State, and subsequently, that the IPC should pay absolute regard to it. That is why we have tabled this new clause and the amendment.

Subsection (2) of the new clause relates to the IPC. In a sense, the matter is consequent on the duty placed on the Secretary of State, because it is sensible that an organisation that is subsidiary to the Secretary of State would also have such a duty placed on it. It is important that we set the context in which that body operates. The IPC may have a degree of scrutiny and accountability to this place through the Secretary of State, but the people chosen to work for it should be independent individuals. If they were all hired guns, who can pretend that the process will be anything other than the Government pushing through whatever they want? There will have to be a system of checks and balances with regard to who serves on the IPC and who deals with particular inquiries. If the body is independent, we must consider the extent to which it is accountable with regard to the way in which climate change is handled. In order to make that process easier, we must make climate change one of its key responsibilities when it carries out its duties, which would help rather than hinder it.

I understand what my hon. Friend the Minister was arguing earlier—at least I think I understand what he was arguing. However, I am not sure that he completely answered the point by categorically stating that there should be duty on the Secretary of State and the IPC to give legitimacy to the process. We want to ensure not only that climate change is writ large in the national policy statements, but that anything worked through as a result of those statements, particularly if it involves the IPC, should be entirely subject to climate change.

That would draw together those three great pieces of legislation, which are historic and which the Government should be proud of passing. However, it seems somewhat strange that the mechanism for pushing through those changes, which could change all our lifestyles, is not quite there. That mechanism is not mentioned categorically, but is entirely dependent upon Ministers, albeit to some extent working with this place and the other place. However, we all know that that is subject to all manner of vagaries. If such a mechanism is not mentioned categorically, some of us fear that the climate change agenda will be diluted and perhaps even forgotten.

That is why I have tabled new clause 1 and the amendments standing in my name. I heard what the hon. Member for Beckenham has said. The Opposition must make their mind up. They have tabled their amendments—we thought that ours were slightly better—but we do not believe that we have a monopoly on wisdom. There has been, I hope, a meeting of minds, because we are trying to get the Bill right. Some of us have been working extensively with non-governmental organisations, which are completely nonplussed by the Government, who, in other ways, have moved extensively and been helpful. Something that could be in place for a decade or longer must be got right.

On the aspect that we are discussing, there is, dare I say, not only no meeting of minds, but questions about why the Government are not prepared to do what we think is the right thing—to state categorically that there should be a duty on the Secretary of State and the IPC to have regard to climate change.

The debate on this group of amendments is the main event this evening. Three elements have emerged from the discussion so far, and I suppose that I, too, should refer to them.

First, we had an interesting exchange about the aviation White Paper and the designation of national policy statements. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has said that she was encouraged by what the Minister said about the conclusion of his debate with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). However, my recollection is that the Minister said that the matter would be one for the relevant Secretary of State. I do not find that wholly reassuring, because there will be many pressures on the Government, as we all know, to deliver all sorts of things, particularly on aviation.

I hoped that the prompting of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the different nature of the White Paper and how it relates to what a national policy statement is designed to be would mean that it could not be considered. The Minister was clear that there are criteria by which the Secretary of State must examine a White Paper or any existing guidelines, to determine whether it could function realistically as a national policy statement. That is a huge responsibility to place on the Secretary of State’s shoulders, when all the other national policy statements may be considered by another process. I am therefore a little concerned that we are not quite at the stage of being reassured on that point.

I apologise to the House for joining the debate late, but Virgin Trains has once again done its utmost to prevent me from being here on time.

The climate change issue is so important that even people such as me, who are quite supportive of aviation, believe that aviation and shipping should be included in measures in this Bill and targets on climate change as a whole. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a concert in the Science museum tomorrow, with me and other MPs, to raise awareness about the Big Ask environmental campaign to try to get shipping and aviation included in the Government’s targets?

I must say that I was unaware of that concert, but the whole House and others, through Hansard and broadcast media, are now aware of it. I am sure that that will help to promote my hon. Friend’s cause. His support of the aviation industry is renowned at a time when it is somewhat discouraging for people to get involved in aviation, especially for him given his past encounters with the ground.

Returning to the requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements, I am delighted that we have had some reassurance from the Chairman of one of the relevant Select Committees that the concerns that he and his colleagues have been raising have been taken on board by the Government, and that the process is moving forward in a consensual and considered way.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Beckenham set matters out much more clearly, and would make it well understood that the vital regulations that we have been discussing would receive assent through votes in this House or another place. We debated this matter in Committee, and the Minister clearly separated issues of setting policy, and the need for democratic accountability in that regard, from the decision-making function, to which we return in debates on the IPC. I am concerned that if the democratic oversight and scrutiny of national policy statements is not watertight and evident in a way in which people can appreciate, it will, as the hon. Lady has said, lead people to lose all faith in the whole system.

If decisions are not taken either by a democratically elected local authority or by a Secretary of State who is answerable to the House, but by an unelected quango, at least the policies that it uses to take decisions will be scrutinised very fully and will ultimately have been voted on by the House. I am not, therefore, entirely reassured by the Minister’s comments, and I hope that the process that is evolving for scrutiny will prove to be satisfactory, but new clause 8 will not necessarily ensure that that is the case. As I understand it, either a resolution may be passed by either House

“or…a committee of the House of Commons makes recommendations with regard to the proposal.”

That “or” is the problem. We would welcome the in-depth scrutiny of a Select Committee with expertise on the relevant national policy statement, but I hope that other hon. Members would then have the chance to have their say.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has tabled an amendment to new clause 8. He, quite sensibly, seeks to ensure that all the measures in the Bill that apply to consultation and publicity will be enforced in this regard as well. That is an important provision, and he is right to raise that issue.

I want to discuss whether the Bill, either in its current form or when it has been amended, will be sufficiently explicit on the need to mitigate climate change and to consider adaptations to it. The amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), which he discussed in a fair and helpful way, is far clearer on what we hope that national policy statements will have regard to, and on what the IPC will have regard to when taking decisions on individual applications. The Minister has said that he was wary of giving one issue more weight than all the others in regard to any decisions that the IPC would have to make. However, other hon. Members have already pointed out that, if there is to be an overarching issue, this is the one. I must admit that I, too, am somewhat surprised that the Government are being particularly resistant to this provision.

I shall confine my comments to the importance of national policy statements, and to how the House is involved in their scrutiny and whether there should be a vote in Parliament to approve them. It is clear from all our debates on the matter that the national policy statements are almost the basis for this legislation. They are absolutely key, and they have support, in principle, across the House.

When an individual planning application is made, a basis of policy should already have been determined by which the application can be judged. That is right in principle; it is also right in terms of process. Clearly, one of the problems with the present system is that each individual planning application involves not only a decision on whether the location in question is the most appropriate for the development, but a debate on whether the development is right per se in regard to policy on transport, or on power and energy, for example. We need to find a better way of determining the policy and considering applications in the light of that policy, so as to shorten the process and ensure that the applications are dealt with more expeditiously, while still being given full consideration.

The way in which policy statements are formulated is absolutely key. In Committee, I think that we were all in a bit of a haze as to how the scrutiny would take place. The Minister was unable to be as clear as he has been today, for obvious reasons. The House is quite rightly jealous of its own methods and procedures for scrutinising anything that the Government propose. It was therefore right that the Minister did not try to commit himself absolutely, although he did give an indication that he would try to reach an agreement on the proper process of scrutiny by the House and on how that would fit in with the overall process of Government scrutiny and consultation on policy statements.

It was interesting to hear the Chairman of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), speaking today to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. There have been fruitful discussions between the Minister and those Committee Chairmen, who are now generally reassured that the Select Committees will be able to do their job of properly scrutinising the policy statements, and that they will be given adequate time in which to do it.

My amendment (a) to new clause 8 is an attempt to flesh out precisely how that process will work. It also sets out what I would not want to see happening—namely, a situation in which public scrutiny was taking place in parallel with the Select Committee scrutiny, and in which Ministers, faced with potentially contradictory views, could play one off against the other. It is entirely reasonable—I described it as an end-on-end process—for the public scrutiny and public consultation to come first. Then, the Select Committee would have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government proposals, but in the light of what the public had to say.

I accept that what my hon. Friend the Minister has done, in consultation with the Select Committee Chairmen, is reach a compromise. The process will set off and there will be consultation with the public and scrutiny in the House, but then there will be a gap after the public consultation has finished. The results of the consultation can be fed into the Select Committee, which can then take account of them before reaching its final view. That seems to be a reasonable compromise.

I am sure that if, in the end, the four to six weeks do not appear to be satisfactory or enough time in practice, Select Committees will not be slow in coming forward to say to Ministers, “We will need a bit longer on future occasions. It does not really work.” There has been a genuine attempt to work through the interaction between the Government process of consultation and scrutiny and the procedures of the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is trying to achieve, and what he has achieved, according to what I have heard from two Select Committee Chairmen.

We then come to the issue of whether what the House does should be more than scrutiny and whether we should be allowed a vote on all the policy statements. We had that debate in Committee and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has already reminded me of proposals that I may have moved, if not pushed to the vote. Instinctively, any hon. Member would want the House to play as big a role as possible and to have greater opportunity to hold the Government to account, as well as ultimately to say through a vote whether it approves of a policy statement. Those are incredibly important documents and we should not undervalue them.

There are, however, two real problems. In an intervention, I asked the hon. Lady whether she was really saying that a Conservative Government, if we ever have one, would give up to an unelected second Chamber the right to decide whether their policy statements went through. Would the Conservatives give an unelected second Chamber a right of veto? She can say so today because she is in opposition, but if she ever occupies a seat on the Treasury Bench she will probably come to a slightly different view. Governments tend to do that, do they not? Once people get into power, they do not much like the idea of giving in to a body that is unaccountable.

That brings me to another, quite important point. When my constituents talk about parliamentary accountability, they mean holding me to account because they elect me. They do not mean holding to account some Members of the House of Lords, because they know that that cannot be done. There is a fundamental problem here. In principle, the hon. Lady is right and the House ought to have some ability to take a view on national policy statements, but surely the House should not be put in a position whereby it could find its view on a national policy statement being overridden by the other place, with no right under the Parliament Acts or any other measure for the wishes of this House to take primacy in that argument.

The hon. Lady has to untangle this one because there is a real problem here. Would we in the House seriously vote to set up a situation whereby we could vote for a policy statement only to find that nothing would be agreed because a veto had been given to the other place?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has provoked me. I had been sitting here thinking, “I am not going to be provoked.” He has produced the solution, which of course is the Parliament Acts. They give the House of Commons primacy.

I understand that the Parliament Acts operate only on legislation. I may be wrong about that and someone with more experience of these matters could correct me, but these measures are not legislation as such. They are orders and there will be no right to use the Parliament Acts.

I do not want this to turn into a dialogue, but the hon. Gentleman may remember that my comments were along the lines of my accepting that my proposal is not perfect and that a method would have to be found for us to create a new, unique process. Within that, we could build in the Parliament Acts.

In due course we may arrive where the hon. Lady would like to be, where I would like to be, and where I suspect Ministers want to be. The essential problem, which she has just identified again, is this. While it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to devise a solution, does she think it possible for us to propose in the Bill—perhaps it is not possible, because it would amount to a fairly fundamental constitutional change—application of the Parliament Act to orders, and establishing an arrangement whereby the process of approval for national policy statements ultimately gives the wishes of this House primacy over those of the other place? Would Members of the other place be likely to vote for a clause to that effect? The answer is that they probably would not, and trying to push the proposal through could delay the passage of the entire Bill.

I believe that the hon. Lady is arguing that when we come to discuss again—in, I hope, the not-too-distant future—the relationship between this House and the other place, we should begin by discussing not how the constitution of the other place should be constructed and who should be a Member of it, but what are the powers of this House in relation to those of the House of Lords, which House has primacy, and whether that primacy applies to orders as well as to legislation. That is an important and interesting argument, but I am not convinced that tacking it on to a clause in the Planning Bill is the solution. If a solution could be found that satisfied the law officers who are advising us, I would probably vote for it, but I suspect that the hon. Lady’s amendment does not do that, and I think she accepts that it does not really work in the context in which it probably ought to work. I therefore do not feel that I can support the amendment, although I instinctively share her sentiments.

I wish to speak to my amendment No. 3. The Minister and members of the Committee will recall that I raised the issue of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields in Committee. As I said then, the Draper report, funded by the Department of Health and published in 2005, found that children who had lived within 200 m of high-voltage power lines since birth had a 70 per cent. higher risk of developing childhood leukaemia. The Government have received recommendations for action on the issue from the Health Protection Agency, from the Government’s own stakeholder group SAGE—the Stakeholder Advisory Group ELF EMF—and from those involved in the cross-party inquiry on childhood leukaemia and EMFs last year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who could not be present for the debate, has given a lead. Recently, along with members of Children with Leukaemia, he met the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), who stated—as he has stated elsewhere—that his Department, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department of Health were considering proposals for precautionary measures to be introduced this year. Those measures are likely to involve either the issuing of information to the public and planning authorities, or planning controls restricting the building of houses very close to high-voltage power lines.

The Bill provides for the expansion of essential infrastructure, such as high-voltage power lines, and for the fast-tracking of planning approval for such projects. I believe that it should also provide for the introduction of precautionary measures. If the Government introduce planning controls applying to the building of houses and schools near power lines, the IPC must be able to implement planning controls on new power lines near houses and schools.

As we know, for we have debated it at tortuous length, the Bill also provides for the creation of national policy statements on infrastructure. If the Government are not prepared to accept an amendment allowing the IPC to consider EMFs and health concerns in its decision making, I want to receive assurances that high-voltage overhead transmission lines will be the subject of a national policy statement.

Amendment No. 3 would simply require the Secretary of State to consult on potential health risks arising from national planning policy during the drafting of national policy statements. I have deliberately left the wording vague. No doubt civil servants advising the Minister have expressed the fear that he may be required to consult all sorts of weird and wonderful organisations that are worried about energy fields and the like. Actually, we leave it to the Secretary of State to designate the organisations that he or she feels are “appropriate” to consult on the risks to health arising from the national policy statement.

Many closely involved with this matter, such as the excellent pressure group Children with Leukaemia, are concerned that the proposed system will allow much less consultation and opportunity for representation from members of the public, as the IPC will be given only six months from the initial meeting to take evidence and another three months to deliberate. The IPC can decide what subjects are relevant to the discussion at the evidence sessions and can explicitly exclude subjects that are deemed to be covered by a national policy statement, which of course could include health.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his amendment. As an aside, the proposal is relevant because, within 20 years, we will be on the edge of a tipping point on climate change, which will be potentially irreversible. That is why it behoves us, on every relevant piece of legislation, to emphasise the issue of climate change. That is what the amendment does and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why there is any opposition to it whatever. I welcome the opportunity to vote on it.

I have a number of problems with the Bill, but the one area where I did not have problems—it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)—was the concept of national policy statements. I support them overwhelmingly. I encourage the idea of democratic involvement in the development of a policy statement that then becomes policy, and then advises those making planning decisions. Everyone who has served on a planning committee in the past knows the difficulty of understanding some of the policy diktats that have come from central Government and how they were ever developed, in many instances. This proposal clarifies the process, and I welcome the idea of publishing, publicising and consulting on the statements.

On parliamentary scrutiny, I would prefer sequential involvement—consultation followed by the Committee—but I accept the compromise reached. We will see how it works. I hope that we will have a commitment to a review, which would then be brought back to the House after a period to see whether the system was working effectively. That review should be undertaken by Committee Chairmen but then reported back to the House.

I do not understand why, at the end of the process, the House cannot have a vote. It is constitutional sophistry to say that these are policies and not legislation. We have a vote on a policy statement; it is called the Queen’s Speech. There is a precedent. To give these statements credibility, they need the democratic stamp of approval, and what better than a vote of this House? Credibility is important. If these policy statements are driven through this House without a vote, we will find even more protestors on the roof of Parliament trying to exercise their democratic rights to tell us that we are not doing our job.

On the question whether the other place has a veto, if it were up to me we would abolish the other place in the first instance, but that is another debate. However, as long as the other place has a role in the determination of legislation, I see no problem in it having a role in the determination of policy as well. We all know that the Parliament Act is implemented very rarely. The issues are bounced back between us and we eventually arrive at a compromise.

On those points, I wish the debate would move on to examine how we can resolve the issue of the process. I do not understand the provision referring to

“either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal”.

I echo what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) says; I do not know what “makes a resolution” means. Does it mean that an early-day motion is tabled? Does it refer to a Committee resolution? Is a negative or affirmative procedure of this House involved? We need clarification on that matter, to assure us that we have some democratic role in its final determination.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is problem? I hope that we could eventually find a way whereby we could resolve any conflict on orders that might arise between this House and the House of Lords, but the legislation process to which he referred is about the two Houses examining how different amendments that are moved in one place and not the other can eventually be reconciled. The problem with these orders is that there is just one vote on them; they are not amendable orders, so there is no process for resolving a situation where one House votes one way and the other House votes the other.

I accept that, but I still think that the issue of principle can be resolved by negotiation in that sense, and that even if it involves facing down the other House, so be it. I would welcome the opportunity to involve some amendment process in these documents, but that is not being afforded to us in this debate. I regret that that was not raised in more detail in Committee.

I tabled a specific amendment with regard to the adoption of existing policy statements as new policy statements, and I think that we have been given further clarity on that. I used the example of the aviation White Paper because that was the example that the Minister used in January. At that point in time, he was expressing the concern of the House that in some way the aviation White Paper would be bounced overnight—to use his expression—into a national policy statement. Let me put my understanding of what we have heard from the Minister tonight on the record, and if he does not intervene on me, I shall take that as tacit consent. I understand that if any existing policy statement has not satisfied the measures being introduced in this Bill for future policy statements—thorough consultation, a sustainability assessment, parliamentary scrutiny and then some form of resolution of this House, whatever that might be—it cannot therefore be accepted as a policy statement.

The Minister then said that any existing proposal has therefore to be determined under the existing procedures. Let us consider the example of aviation, which I take at random. Such a proposal would thus have to be based on the policies set out in the existing aviation White Paper. If that is the case, may I put on record the fact that the aviation White Paper is considerably out of date now? Many of us believe it was inaccurate when it was published in the first instance. Things have moved on, so any Government would be in jeopardy of considering a decision about the expansion of Heathrow airport—again, I use a random example—on the proposals set out in the aviation White Paper. Given that we know that the issues have moved on and the factors that brought about that White Paper are no longer relevant, it would be unreasonable to take any decision based on that existing policy statement. Therefore, any future decisions about aviation should be based on a national policy statement that starts afresh.

As I have made clear, I am quite a big supporter of aviation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ministers do not really need to be too afraid of the proposal, because they could work in partnership with the aviation sector? It knows very well that the writing is on the wall and that it will have to work to consider the environmental consequences that he is describing in terms of emissions and other considerations. The problem is that as long as the Government refuse to engage with aviation on the environmental agenda, aviation will not feel considerable parliamentary pressure to operate responsibly in this regard.

That intervention is incredibly helpful; I do not know how the hon. Gentleman will fit that into tomorrow night’s concert, but I look forward to hearing the lyrics. [Interruption.] I thought that I would get another plug in for him. The essential point that I am trying to make is that this legislation, which I fully and wholeheartedly support with regard to national policy statements, sets a rigorous standard of process for engagement with the wider general public, the various other statutory bodies and the interest groups. A definitive statement on policy will then be arrived at, and the IPC can use it to guide its decisions.

Any process by which we tried to pre-empt that and bounce in an existing statement without due process would undermine the whole system and be open to challenge. We cannot use existing White Papers as a stopgap or to justify major infrastructure decisions because they are so out of date. It would be better to await the development of proper NPSs before any major infrastructure decisions are made. In that way, we would arrive at legitimate decisions that may achieve popular support.

I obviously have concerns about the development of Heathrow, but that is not the only issue. There are genuine concerns across the piece about the development of NPSs from existing statements without due process. I shall list the organisations that have expressed concern about the clause in question, which I have tabled an amendment to delete. Those organisations include the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Civic Trust, Friends of the Earth, the National Trust, the Ramblers Association, the Woodland Trust, the Campaign for Better Transport, the Wildlife Trust, the Council for National Parks, Plantlife International, the Geoconservation Association, the Enough is Enough organisation, AirportWatch and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I do not know of a greater and wider coalition that has come together on an environmental issue. Those organisations represent millions of our constituents who are anxious about this process. They want to see due process take place and to be involved in the development of NPSs, which would give them credibility.

There is potential for a new planning process based on real engagement, which could build up once again the credibility of planning. It could also meet the Government’s criteria for expeditious decision making. On the basis of the assurances that we have been given and the Minister’s tacit consent to the statements I have just made about my beliefs about the Government’s position, I shall not press my amendment to a vote tonight.

Following on from what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has just said, I wish to refer to an exchange that I had with the Minister in Committee. I referred to clause 11, which states:

“The Secretary of State may take account of consultation carried out, and publicity arranged, before the commencement day for the purpose of complying with the requirements of section 7”,

which address the consultation leading up to the policy document. So that is a worry. It is also apparent that if a statement issued before the commencement is designated as an NPS, the Secretary of State is not bound to take into account the consultation carried out in connection with the statement. Those are contradictory and bad, but could happen under the Bill as it stands. Matters are not as comfortable as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think.

I know that the Minister did his best to explain the position, and I am not being critical of him, but this issue is of great concern. The public have to be involved in the process from the beginning. After all, we are legislating for a brand new system for large-scale developments, and if the system is to stand the test of time the public must feel, and must be, fully involved in the process. It is no use having consultations with all and sundry to the exclusion of those who should have first say.

Let us not kid ourselves: the Bill is designed to hurry through bad neighbour developments of the type listed in clause 13 (a) to (o)—all potentially bad neighbours. The need for public scrutiny is thus higher than ever it was for general planning legislation.

I might be the last to speak in this debate, so may I congratulate the Government on producing a groundbreaking procedure through the national policy statements? They have been acknowledged as such by Members from both sides of the House. It is good to see the Secretary of State listening to what I think is one of the most important debates that we have had for a long time. I am surprised that there are not more Members present to contribute.

There is no question about the fact that what we are doing today is groundbreaking. The national policy statements will need to be scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament in one way or another. Indeed, it would be folly not to use the expertise in the other place. The Minister needs to think about the parliamentary procedure very carefully. As well as being discussed with the four relevant Select Committees, the matter ought to have been referred to the Procedure Committee because we are making a new parliamentary procedure. The Procedure Committee should have worked out a way forward with the involvement of every Member of this House and of the other House who wished to become involved.

There are lots of issues for the Select Committees to consider. There will be a huge work load. I do not necessarily know whether the Chairmen of the four Select Committees involved have worked out what the work load of producing the national policy statements will be. Even with the Government’s help and even with the Government having produced a draft in the first place, the public consultation must then be considered, and expert witnesses must be taken into account as well.

Some while ago in the debate, I should have declared my interest as one of the four chartered surveyors in the House and one who has practised in the planning field. I therefore know the minutiae of the issues involved and how long some inquires can take. If any of the minutiae is translated into what the Select Committees must do, the Committees have got a shock in store as regards the amount of work they are going to have to do. If the system is to work properly, not only must they produce a national policy statement on the subject that they are considering, but they must consider other national policy statements that have been already issued, because all national policy statements must interlock if they are to work properly with the IPC’s involvement. There is no separating different transport systems or different energy-producing systems. All infrastructure in this country is ultimately interlocking; what we do with one system has an effect on the others.

There is an immense work load. Yes, of course such things must be done in proper detail. I am open-minded about whether there should be a vote on this matter. I can understand the argument for a vote—it gives democratic legitimacy—but the Secretary of State is the person ultimately responsible to Parliament for how the whole IPC procedure works. Indeed, one of the major problems if Parliament has a vote is that I do not know how that review procedure that the Secretary of State can invoke will work. He would be invoking a review of something that Parliament had already voted on. So my inclination is to say that Parliament should scrutinise such things in great detail with whatever method is come up with, but the Secretary of State should be responsible for producing the national policy statement. That is probably the only way that it will work.

In considering how they will proceed, the Select Committees will need to consider how the private Bill procedure worked in the past. That gives a clue to the amount of work that is involved. Will they allow the promoters to be legally represented, for example? Under the private Bill procedure, that delays the process hugely, because the professionals involved tend to go into much greater and much more technical detail than the laymen involved in the process. The Select Committees will need to look at that very carefully. Of course, those involved will want to streamline the procedure, but if it is too streamlined the legitimacy of the report produced will not be as great as if the matter had been considered in great detail.

The promoters’ position must be considered. For example, let us take BAA and this country’s airports policy. How will the Select Committees deal with BAA’s evidence? What declarations will the companies and individuals involved in the process have to make? Indeed, the members of the Select Committees will need to think about what declarations they make.

We are making groundbreaking rules. The process needs to be expedited, but it must be seen to be legitimate and fair, and as other hon. Members have said the public must have an adequate say in every national policy statement if they are to come out at the end of the process with the legitimacy that they deserve, but that is not the end of the process. In a complicated world things move on very quickly, and I can understand that, at the end of the process, the national policy statements will need to be revised fairly frequently—so the cycle starts all over again. The Secretary of State will have a role in their revision and the IPC can make recommendations on their revision, but Parliament must constantly keep in mind whether its own national policy statement is up to date and still applicable.

The Government still have a little thinking to do on the whole matter. I am sure that the other place, with its acute legal brains, will have a great deal to say on the matter. It is a highly important matter; we need to get it right. I hope that the Government will not rush it. They should put it to the Procedure Committee. We need to think very carefully about the role of both Houses and whether or not we should have a vote and whether the Secretary of State should be the final arbiter in producing the national policy statements.

I had not planned to speak but, unusually, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). National policy statements are extremely important and will receive a lot of scrutiny. The Lords is best at doing that sort of thing. The idea that the Secretary of State will make the final decision without a vote in both Houses of Parliament seems utterly wrong. I suggest to her that there is a danger that if national policy statements are not subject to scrutiny in the other place and are not voted on there, she will not have won the argument. We are talking about important national policy statements that should command the support of the whole House. I say to the Ministers present, in good faith, that it is not impossible that in a few months they will be sitting on the Opposition Benches and will regret the fact that the other place has not been given more of a say on the matters that we are discussing. As I say, unusually, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold.

My hon. Friend is of course fully entitled to his views, and I welcome any disagreement; that is the nature of the House. However, if he proposes that there should be a vote, he will have to say how this House will retain primacy. Somebody has to make an ultimate decision. If he is saying that national policy statements have to be subject to a vote, at the end of the day one or other of the Houses will have to be supreme. I suggest that it must be this House, and there has to be a new mechanism to enable that.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am afraid that I disagree again. My argument is that the proposal must command the support of both Houses. Whether this House or the other has primacy is another debate. The idea that the other place should not be given a vote because its Members are not elected does not bear scrutiny, because I understand that the Government’s policy is to have an elected upper Chamber. However, that is a different issue. If there are to be highly important national policy statements, they must command the widest support. If the Government cannot get their way, they need to revise the policy until it commands widespread support in both Houses. It is therefore important that votes are held at the end of the process. Any system that gives power to the Secretary of State is undemocratic.

We have had a serious debate on the serious issues covered by this group of amendments. I pay tribute to the contributions that all Members have made this afternoon. We are breaking new ground in the Bill; we are putting in place a set of reforms and a new system that is opening up new territory for us.

I was particularly struck by the contribution that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made; it was thoughtful and constructive, and there were points for me, and the Chairs of the Select Committees, to consider. I say to him that the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee were brought into discussions, not least because the Select Committee Chairs rightly wanted to consider and consult them. As a Minister, I have taken the view that it is proper for me to have a relationship and discussion with the Select Committee Chairs. It is for them to consult and consider the views of different parts of the House. That is how we have conducted the process to date.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Select Committees’ work load might be significant as a result of national policy statements, particularly over the next year or two, when the bulk of national policy statements will be produced in draft for the first time. That is one of the reasons why, quite early on, I took the view, in response to the Select Committee Chairs’ arguments, that they needed flexibility to decide how best to deal with each national policy statement that is produced—whether that should be one of the existing four departmental Committees or whether it should be a combined Committee that draws on the expertise, talent and experience from all four.

This has been a very good debate. Whatever our disagreements about having a vote, one thing that has come out of the debate is that we should use the expertise of the other place. In his discussions with the Select Committees, did the Minister discuss how that might be invoked?

I have some respect for the other place and for the expertise of its membership, but this House has specific departmental Select Committees with the expertise to scrutinise and hold to account the Departments of Government. The other House has nothing akin to that. The other House may choose to debate and vote on national policy statements in the future. That is why we have said clearly that although we will take into account any resolution of either House, we will take into account the recommendations and reports of Select Committees of this House, giving proper recognition to the special expertise that our departmental Select Committees have, which marks them out from the range of different Committees that the other place has established.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he was open-minded on the question of voting. His hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), sitting immediately behind the Front-Bench team, promptly jumped up to say loyally that he was not open-minded on the question of a vote. For those who seriously advocate a vote, there are some significant factors that have not yet been worked through. I shall return to the matter at the end of my remarks, but the hon. Member for Cotswold was spot on when he said in the end that Secretaries of State must be responsible for national policy statements, because national policy statements are just that: they are policy statements and they are the responsibility of Government.

I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) to the debate in the Chamber and in Committee. He said that the public must be fully involved in the new planning system. They will be. There will be opportunities for them to be involved in a stronger, clearer and more systematic way than in the current system. First, the new national policy statements will be subject to full public consultation, with particular provisions where there are location-specific elements to policy statements that will have potential effects in local areas.

Secondly, for the first time ever, there will be a duty on any promoter who wants to submit an application for a major project to contact and consult local communities and local councils before they even submit their application, with the IPC being prepared not even to consider the application unless that is done properly. Thirdly, there will be a protection for the right to be heard in inquiries. Fourthly, planning aid will be doubled so that individuals and local groups that are short of resources can get the advice and in some cases the support on representation that they require to make their views heard and their point of view tell in inquiries.

I thank the Minister for the detailed response that he is giving the House.

At the end of the day, the IPC can decide in what form an objector is to give evidence before it, and it can decide whether to allow cross-examination of the proposer. To my way of thinking, that is a little different from what the Minister said, albeit inadvertently.

It is not different at all. Everyone will have a right to submit evidence to the commission; they can do that in writing. Everyone will have the right to be heard in an open session if they require that. We seek to put in place specific open sessions for those whose properties are affected by compulsory purchase orders. The questioning will be led by the commission itself, not by lawyers. It will not involve the kind of adversarial, sometimes off-putting, hugely expensive and often lengthy lawyer-driven process in which local voices are normally the first to get lost. We can ensure that the inquiry can be conducted fairly and faster than is sometimes the case in the big inquiries, some of which get bogged down for years.

On the issue of existing policy statements, I say to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), to paraphrase a former US President: read my words. [Hon. Members: “Read my lips!”] I said “to paraphrase”. I encourage the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy to consult the Official Report tomorrow.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that I am glad to have his support for national policy statements and his acceptance that the arrangements on parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation, which we have now agreed with the Select Committee Chairs, are an important step forward. However, simply saying that he might wish to abolish the other place is beyond the scope of the Bill and does not answer the concern that the other place may take a different view, if that is equally binding to that of this place, on a policy statement. It is not an answer simply to say that the Parliament Act 1949 is in place; that is used only for legislation.

Will the Minister give way?

Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I do not? I have given way to him so often today, and I want to deal with the other points that have been raised.

It is good to see the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) in his place for this part of the proceedings. I hope that he will accept that his amendment No. 3 seeks to add a level of detail that is not appropriate for the Bill—certainly not before the Government have come to their conclusions following consideration of the specialist advisory report or the recommendations and views of the Health Protection Agency.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman what I hope he will take as a note of encouragement. The appraisal of sustainability that I have made clear will be required as part of the process for producing a draft national policy statement—certainly before the statement can be designated—will need to consider, as an appraisal of sustainability and not just of the environment, population and human health as part of the social, economic and environmental effects. Furthermore, there is a provision in the Bill that gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe statutory consultees in secondary legislation. I say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the process and that is the place in which to consider the roles of the organisations in which he has an interest.

I am grateful for those assurances, but will the Minister give me one more? Will he, in consultation with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department of Health, speed the process along? The issue now has a head of steam. We have a detailed statistic on the risk for children who live close to such facilities. We want progress in co-operation with other Departments, so that we can carry a precautionary principle through to some future conclusion.

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance and I pay tribute to him and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who contributed to the Housing and Regeneration Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who contributed in the same way to the Energy Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), is keen to see this concluded, and I will also do my best to ensure that it is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) described national policy statements as the basis of the Bill and said that they are right in principle and in process. He rightly said that the Select Committees are reassuring about the fact that they can do a proper job of scrutiny under the provisions that we set out in the Bill. I hope that that is a firm basis for this House to endorse our proposals. I understand him when he says that he has an instinctive attraction to the idea of a binding vote for approval, but he set out, more eloquently than I did, some of the problems and flaws that still exist in that regard.

In response to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), resolutions of either House are designed to deal with debates that may or may not take place in either House on a national policy statement. In the Bill, we frame that as taking into account those debates or the report of a Committee of this House. We mean both but draft it in that way because there may well be no debate or resolution on a particular national policy statement in either House.

Very few Members on either side of the House have been more consistent or committed as advocates of action on climate change than my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). He is right to say that we should not be debating this in isolation. There are links to the Energy Bill, to the prospective marine Bill and, as I tried to make clear, to the Climate Change Bill. As I said earlier, there will be what he described as due regard to climate change in the appraisals of sustainability. It will then be built into national policy statements based on the sustainable development that he has been so keen to see, which will be the framework that the IPC has to use as a single-principle policy framework for considering and determining any applications for major projects.

My hon. Friend took me to task and pointed out in particular that there is a duty in clause 151 on local planning authorities in relation to climate change. Let me be clear to the House. Clause 151 relates to plan-making only—to development plan documents, which are the equivalent at the local level of our national policy statements. We do not need to put a similar duty on Ministers when drawing up the national policy statements because, first, we have the sustainable development duty; secondly, we have the duty on Ministers to do an appraisal of sustainability and to publish it alongside the draft national policy statement; and, thirdly, we have the Climate Change Bill, which will bear on Ministers in a way that it will not bear on local authorities. I hope that that may be sufficient reassurance to my hon. Friend not to press his amendments.

I hear what the Minister says. However, if we are going to state categorically in the Climate Change Bill that there is a duty on Ministers, I see even more of a dilemma in not stating it categorically in this Bill. They should be interwoven—that is what gives them their strength.

But the interlinking of the provisions of this Bill with the provisions of the Climate Change Bill was precisely his point and precisely my point. Instead of replicating or duplicating, the power of the provisions in the Climate Change Bill will bite hard on Ministers and on central Government but will not bite in the same way on local authorities. It is therefore reasonable and right to look in clause 151 at placing this duty on the equivalent plan-making power, with the development plan documents, as we are doing in the national policy statements.

Finally, I turn to the comments of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I welcome her welcome of our amendments on blight and compulsory purchase and her recognition that climate change will be considered as part of sustainability appraisals of the national policy statements. When she spoke to her amendments, she was right to say that the House will not own the policy. The policy is properly the responsibility of the Government and elected Ministers. The policy is rightly that of the Government, but before it is put in place it is also right that it is subject to strong and full public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, which is what new clause 8 and the associated amendments are designed to do.