I remind hon. Members that there are approximately 40 minutes of this debate left. Perhaps they would bear that in mind when making their contributions.

From Second Reading onwards, I have spent a lot of time considering various aspects of the Bill. I have made it clear that I support its main intention, which is to provide a more expeditious way of dealing with planning applications for major infrastructure projects. At the same time, I have expressed several concerns about the initial proposals and have sought to try to improve the Bill rather than to oppose it. I have accepted the need for these matters to be dealt with expeditiously and tried to find a way of ensuring that that is done while bringing more accountability and scrutiny into the process. I must say bluntly to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that I have heard her say that she is in favour of finding a more expeditious method, but I have not heard her propose anything that would deliver it.

It is all right for us in this House to pass resolutions and legislation committing ourselves to dealing with climate change, putting forward appropriate targets and perhaps even seeking to improve them, but the reality is that if we do not have a mechanism for ensuring that applications for nuclear power stations and wind farms get through in a relatively short period, subject to all the proper scrutiny that is needed, we will never meet any of those targets.

I have had discussions with right hon. and hon. Friends about the final say in these matters and whether it should be a recommendation or a confirmation process for the IPC, and I have tabled amendment No. 60 and other consequential amendments. It is a difficult issue. My right hon. and hon. Friends have advanced arguments, which we also had in Committee, about whether this is a judge and jury process and whether it creates too much unpredictability. I do not accept either of those arguments. By their very nature, planning applications are unpredictable; otherwise, there would be no point in going through the process of considering them.

However, I have to accept that there are two areas of concern. First, there will be an additional delay in applications, perhaps of a year or more. I have sat with colleagues and looked at the empirical evidence for that. I would say to hon. Friends who have tabled other amendments—for principled and proper reasons; I respect them for that—that I am not sure that merely stipulating a fixed time in which Ministers would have to reach a conclusion is necessarily a satisfactory way of dealing with this. Ministers might well need more time, and if they are not given it, we could end up with a set of different problems.

I accept that the existence of policy statements constrains, in political terms, the planning decisions made, whoever makes them. Therefore, I welcome what the Minister promised on the first day of Report—that the policy statements will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, I welcome the location-specific promise given for the policy statements on nuclear power and airports. At that stage, with parliamentary scrutiny, and with Ministers taking decisions, real political decisions will be made, not quasi-judicial decisions on where developments happen. That is quite important.

I welcome the process improvements that have been agreed, particularly the commitment to accept new clause 42 and related amendments, which I will want to put to the vote, on the role of local authorities. The commission will have to have a statutory regard to the report produced by authorities that considers views of constituents and an application’s relevance to and relationship with the authority’s local development framework. Those measures raise local government to a different level in the consultation, and it is important that the body of elected representatives in an area should have that elevated role. I welcome support for that amendment.

I welcome support for the right of individuals to be heard where compulsory purchase orders affect them, and the acceptance of new clauses 40 and 41, and related amendments.

How does the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 41 differ from the ordinary right to take a matter to the Lands Tribunal?

I will not respond to that in technical terms. My understanding is that there is currently a deficiency that would not allow people to have that right, which is covered by the new clause. I would have thought that such a change was fairly uncontentious. As I understand it, it would give people the same rights as they have to a public hearing on applications that go to the IPC. There has been a lot of misunderstanding on this matter, and I hope that Ministers will be able to make it absolutely clear that any individual who expresses an interest in an application that goes to the IPC will be able to ask for and get a public hearing, and that none of those matters will be dealt with by written representations in those circumstances.

I explored the matter of potential delay with my right hon. Friends, and we come back to the proposals of the hon. Member for Beckenham concerning Ministers’ confirmation. I suggested that Ministers could take all the decisions from the IPC and, where there was no contention or they had no concerns, they could fast-track them, but there may be other issues that Ministers might want to take longer to consider. The problem is that if Ministers decided that they had no particular concerns, they would still have to go through a long-winded process of assuring themselves that they did not have concerns. If they did not, a fast-track process might be subject to judicial review, with all the problems that that can bring about.

It might be possible to introduce additional criteria meaning that Ministers could consider particularly contentious applications, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained, the Bill lists criteria such as cases where there are concerns of national security, where there is no national policy statement or where a policy statement is out of date, or becomes out of date before the application or during the process of considering it. In all those circumstances, Ministers can intervene. If there are other circumstances in which ministerial intervention might be appropriate, I would like to hear about them, because I am prepared to consider them, but I thought that it might be best to consider what comes out of the practical application of the process. If, during the first two years, there are clear examples of where it would be more appropriate to refer a matter to Ministers, criteria can be developed at the end of the two-year review. This House sometimes has an obligation to be proactive in such matters. My right hon. Friend has said that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny of the chair and vice-chair. Regular reports will be provided to Select Committees, and Select Committees currently request such reports.

There is also a crucial point, which I raised, about accountability. Ministers can be brought to the Chamber to explain decisions about applications and now the chairman of the commission can be brought before any Select Committee. Indeed, the commissioners who make decisions can also be requested to appear before a Committee with the chairman to explain their reasons. If the House is proactive, it will build for itself a body of evidence about how the process is working and whether there are problems, and thus contribute to the two-year review. That is a challenge for us.

What does the hon. Gentleman expect to happen if, in interviewing the chairman and the Minister, the Select Committee decides that they are wrong, post decision?

In the end, we can learn from the process whether we should change it and the policy statements in any way. The policy statements will form the basis of the decisions. If the commission has made a decision outwith the policy statement, it is automatically judicially reviewable. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm that we should make it clear that decisions must be based on the policy statements. If we would be more comfortable referring some matters to Ministers, that can be fed into the two-year review.

We are discussing the most contentious aspects of the Bill, as the Secretary of State clearly pointed out. I am delighted that she is here to discuss the measure and to present those aspects this afternoon. I pay tribute to her for doing that, because the Minister for Local Government has handled the measure up to now.

There is consensus in three corners of the House about one fundamental point, which was raised on Second Reading, in Committee and this afternoon: reform of the planning system to speed up and ensure that decisions are made effectively on major national infrastructure projects is required. Some aspects of the measure set out to do that. There is also agreement that national policy statements are a step forward and will help in that process and that a single consent process is a step in the right direction. Indeed, there is agreement on many aspects.

However, the Government have failed to provide an answer about who makes the final decision. It is not fair to say that we can have all those other things without a democratically elected person making the final decision. I believe that that flies in the face of the purpose of the Bill and the Government’s comments about local determination. Local member review is about strengthening the hand of locally elected representatives to make the final decision after officers have considered it in the first instance. Most hon. Members would support that.

Amendment No. 339, which the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) tabled, amendment No. 5, which Conservative Front Benchers tabled, and amendment No. 68, which I tabled, would all do something similar. Although we accept that the planning system needs reform and that the Bill contains many helpful steps, the final decision must rest with someone who is accountable, not an appointed quango. Therefore, in common with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), I am happy to say that my hon. Friends and I will support the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) if he chooses to push his amendment to a vote. Obviously I say that on the basis that he will have the opportunity to do so. Indeed, if he does not press his amendment, let me signal my intention to do so for him, should that prove necessary.

There are a number of other highly significant amendments in the group. I will try to rattle through them as quickly as I can. Essentially, we must get accountability back into the proposals. Our amendment No. 310, which seeks to limit to 40 the number of applications that the IPC can consider, is an attempt to probe the Minister for Local Government. He said in evidence to the Committee that

“we can be pretty confident that, unless the proposals in the Bill for what should qualify as infrastructure projects for the IPC changes significantly, the sort of figure that we are talking about—40 or 45 on average a year—is what the IPC would be expected to deal with.”––[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 148, Q362.]

However, in a subsequent parliamentary answer to me, that figure crept up to a firmer 45, plus an unspecified

“larger number of less complex cases”.—[Official Report, 31 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 712W.]

Hon. Members who have been following proceedings on the Bill closely will know that we have returned to the idea of mission creep again and again. To me, that larger number of less complex cases is highly suspicious. Our amendment No. 310 seeks to hold the Government to what we have been told all the way through. I am not convinced that the IPC is the right way to proceed, but if it is, we should at least be able to hold the Government to the assurances that they have given us up to now.

Amendment No. 327 seeks to make the new development consent process contingent on local priorities, although the Secretary of State was keen to point out that a number of the amendments are concerned with existing guidelines and policies. In common with others who have tabled amendments on that basis, I feel that all those processes and duly agreed-upon procedures and policies should be taken into account by the IPC. I therefore disagree with her that such an obligation should not be imposed on the IPC. Any wins that have been had by the local community and by those concerned with environmental considerations or whatever else it might be should not be lost at that point.

Many of my constituents, and I am sure those of other hon. Members, have expressed considerable support for amendment No. 66, which the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) has tabled, which would ensure that people have the right to have their voices heard directly. That is an important issue that other hon. Members raised repeatedly in Committee, as we have heard this afternoon.

New clause 7 seemed to cause the Secretary of State some concern. It deals with independent third-party oversight of consultation and does not really need much more explanation than the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) gave in an intervention, when he asked what confidence people would have in a consultation process carried out by the proposer of a scheme. That is a fundamental flaw in the process. We are talking about a consultation aimed at improving an application, so that when it reaches determination and a more formal inquiry process, a lot of the issues will have been dealt with. However, I am still not convinced that a local community can be confident that the proposer of a scheme will undertake that consultation in such a way that it truly reflects the concerns that have been raised, especially where they fundamentally disagree with what the proposer is trying to construct.

Previously on Report, we sadly lost the chance to strengthen and improve the Bill with regard to mitigating climate change and adapting to its effects. Hon. Members have tabled amendments to make those points again about the key wins that we have already had on planning policy. We must hold the Government to that. Our amendments Nos. 69 and 70 focus on those issues.

I am particularly keen that we discuss an issue that the hon. Member for Beckenham raised through her amendment No. 40, which applies to clause 110. The provision will cause much concern to people outside the House, as it will allow the IPC to set aside legislation that has been agreed in the House if it is in some way inconvenient to the determination that it is making. I think that that is fundamentally wrong. If changes to primary legislation are necessary, this House should take the decision on them; it should not be taken by an unelected quango, which is gifted that power under the clause. That is utterly wrong.

There are a number of other flaws worth exploring. I am confident that many of the amendments in the group—sadly, we will not have the opportunity to vote on many of them this afternoon—would greatly improve the Bill. Let me respond to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for whom I have a great deal of respect. Time and again in Committee, he stood up to make the case for improving the Bill. Sadly, in Committee as now, he decided not to press his amendments to the vote, so I was not surprised when he chose not to do so again this evening. His powers of analysis are on the record, but his negotiating skills may leave a little to be desired in the light of the concessions that the Secretary of State outlined earlier.

Certain schemes such as nuclear sites and airport expansions would be considered under the national policy statement site-specific procedure. We have already heard about that; it has clearly been the Government’s intention throughout the proceedings. I am sure that Members with constituencies near Heathrow will be concerned that decisions might be taken even further away from local people, who will not realise how crucial it is for them to get involved in the NPS. They will probably be waiting for a local or specific application, not understanding that they need to make their voices heard over the NPS. I doubt whether retrospectively bringing in the IPC chairman to answer questions from Select Committees, will provide much reassurance to people who have had a scheme imposed on their local community.

I am afraid that I am not convinced by what the Secretary of State said, grateful though I am that she has presented herself to the House this afternoon to try to justify the Bill. As I have already said, my party finds accord with many of the Bill’s provisions, but we are certainly opposed on the issue of the IPC taking the final decision on matters of such importance. We shall therefore support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Selby.

I am grateful for the chance to say a few words in support of amendment No. 339. The Secretary of State, for whom I have great regard, described the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for whom I have equal regard, as being really useful. I cannot pretend that she will necessarily see my amendment in the same light, but I want to address my remarks specifically to her in order to highlight the two specific merits of the amendment. We on the Back Benches like to listen and learn from what is said by those on the Front Benches; never let it be said that we do not try to do that.

First, I have heard the words “business” and “certainty” mentioned all the way through these debates, and I believe that my amendment, unlike the Government’s confused amendments and explanations of the Bill, gives business the certainty that it requires in promoting big infrastructure investments. As has been pointed out, the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe will create great uncertainty. In two years’ time, a review will be conducted, so perhaps the whole system will change. The Secretary of State listed all the criteria whereby Ministers may take decisions under the proposed system. On “Newsnight” last night, the BBC’s political correspondent suggested that decisions on all nuclear power stations, for example, could be considered under the national security criteria. Massive confusion is being created, whereas my amendment, specifying a definite six-month period for Ministers to take decisions, would be welcomed by many businesses. When I rang many business people this morning, I found that they were alarmed by the confusion apparent in the Government’s proposals.

Secondly, there is the issue of democracy and ministerial accountability. As my right hon. Friend suggests, tough and controversial decisions are being made. It is all the more important for such decisions to have, and be seen to have, democratic legitimacy if there is not to be a series of protests up and down the country that would slow down the vital national infrastructure projects to which the Government are referring.

We should be grateful to the Secretary of State for coming before the House to argue her case, and she has done so with her usual enthusiasm and consideration. There were times, however, when she reminded me somewhat of Napoleon. Her categorical assertion of the primacy of the national interest, which must override any other consideration, was very powerfully put, and in many ways she is right, in that the issues we face call for bold decision making. The question is how we reconcile the need to take decisions in the national interest with the requirement that ownership should be felt at the level of those people who will pay the price, because in all planning decisions some people pay the bills and others reap the benefits. We must find a way of reconciling that, and find a process that people feel is reasonable.

A lot will depend on how the mechanism the Secretary of State has outlined will work in practice. It will be up to this House and its Committees to get hold of this mechanism by a prominent part of the anatomy and shake it, and to assert from the very beginning that it intends to play a major role and to call to account in practice, and not just theoretically. We talk a great deal about accountability; we sometimes fail in our own duties to assert it, but we have the power to do so.

One of my concerns is that we will have yet another quango. It is a curious fact that in England and Wales more people serve on quangos than serve as elected councillors. The “quangocracy” has taken over from the democracy to a significant extent in our life. The Government have been prolific in creating quangos, and here is yet another very important one.

Planning is an intensely political activity. People sometimes blithely say, “Politicians interfere in the planning process”, as if planning were some eternal, infernal or esoteric machine that ought not to be interfered upon by the sort of people who get themselves elected and stoop to that rather dismal task. It is intensely political; it is about mediation—about mediating between individuals. That is what happens when someone wants to build a conservatory or plant a leylandii hedge. It is about mediating between the individual and the community, and between the community and the nation. Planning decisions can overturn people’s lives, not merely the value of their properties. The amenities people enjoy shape their lives fundamentally. It is important that their voice is heard, and that they should feel it is heard. It is easy for us to say, “We have provided a lot of consultation”, but if people do not feel it is real—if they feel it is a formal mechanism that sweeps them up but that nobody listens—they will be seriously disaffected by the entire process.

Therefore, this is about people, not stakeholders. There must be clear lines of accountability, because at the end of the day the public have to be able to kick somebody, and they have to be able to kick somebody who feels the pain. On the whole, quangos do not feel the pain, so the kicking can be futile. Politicians do feel the pain, however, for the obvious reason that from time to time that pain can have fairly cataclysmic results for us. It is a mistake to talk about a policy of principle as being the same as the acceptance of the conclusions to that in the specific.

We do not yet know much about the commission. During the progress of the Housing and Regeneration Bill the name of the new boss was announced at a very early stage, but its passage was rather more rapid than that of this Bill; this has been the most stuttering Bill I can remember in a long time. There has been a huge gap between when it came out of Committee and the first attempt at the Report stage, and then a huge gap before the second attempt at the Report stage. It almost has the feel of being fatally wounded before it gets anywhere near the completion of its passage. Personally, if we are to have this body, I would rather that it had independent people with analytical skills on it than make an attempt to represent every single interest group. I hope that we will never hear the word “stakeholders” used in reference to the people manning the committee. That would be entirely the wrong approach.

The Secretary of State made two specific concessions. First, she talked about nuclear and airport decisions being locationally specific. However, she talked in terms of having a shortlist of places—areas that might be eligible and areas that would not be. I just want to know how specific the location will be, because that was not clear from her remarks. I cannot conceive, for example, that a decision to build a new runway should not be one for the Cabinet to make. Given its huge implications, such a decision should not be taken any lower than Cabinet level. Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned the review after two years. I am glad about that, but I wonder just how many cases the commission will have adjudicated on by 3 June 2010.

We all want more speed in the planning process, but I wonder whether the Bill will improve matters. From the promoters’ pre-application consultation process, by the time an application has worked through the system, with all the opportunities for judicial review, I wonder whether we will have done anything more than introduce a system that will take just as long but has had some of the democratic accountability—on which people depend to a significant extent—removed, in an area on which people are pretty disaffected already.

I speak in support of amendment No. 66, which I tabled. On Second Reading, I said that I would subject the Bill to a simple test: if my constituents face a major infrastructure planning application, how far would the process allow them to play a significant role in the decision on it. The process by which the IPC will undertake inquiries is grossly inferior to the current system. The measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have been a magnificent addition to what already exists: they are not a substitute for it.

Removing the right of interested parties to test the evidence through cross-examination is a retrograde step. The other proposals in the Bill, such as the open floor session, do not compensate for the removal of the essential right to cross-examine. The open floor session does not include a right to ask questions, to produce witnesses or more formally cross-examine the applicant. It downgrades the right to be heard to little more than a right to sound off. Communities will not be satisfied with the limitations of the measure and the result may be more direct action, as we have seen in the past, or judicial review.

The Bill provides opportunity for pre-application consultation that does not exist in the current system, but my experience—and that of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—is that such consultation is largely meaningless, because it is organised by the developer, who is not an independent arbiter of such matters. To be credible, consultation should and must be organised by publicly accountable bodies with a transparent process.

Despite all the research that I have done, there is little evidence that the present opportunities for public involvement through oral hearings and cross-examination are responsible for inordinate delays. The terminal 5 inquiry is often mentioned in aid of such arguments, but much of that delay was down to the applicants’ lack of preparation, the number of documents submitted, the several regimes under which the application was heard, and the time taken to reach a decision once the inquiry was over. The present system has been caricatured as a barristers’ bun fight and we have heard talk of nimbyism and well-resourced non-governmental organisations. However—I think that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) nearly touched on this—it all comes down to what Winston Churchill once said about democracy being the worst form of government apart from all the rest. I believe that the measures that the Secretary of State is seeking to introduce to replace the current situation are simply a case of throwing the baby out of the bathwater, and so I shall want to press amendment No. 66 to a vote.

I shall be very brief, because I spoke at length in the earlier part of the day—

It being Five o’clock, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [2 June and 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 12

Effect of intervention

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State gives a direction under section 103(1) in relation to an application.

(2) The Secretary of State has the functions of—

(a) examining the application, and

(b) deciding the application.

(3) The Secretary of State may discharge the function of examining the application by—

(a) directing the Commission to examine such matters as may be specified by the Secretary of State;

(b) conducting an examination of any matters in relation to which a direction under paragraph (a) is not given.

(4) Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State] makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State’s function of examining an application under this section.

(5) An examination under subsection (3)(a) is to be conducted in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State].

(6) An examination under subsection (3)(b) is to be conducted in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State].

(7) Rules under paragraph 3 of Schedule [Examination of applications by Secretary of State] must provide for a deadline for the completion by the Secretary of State of—

(a) the examination of the application under subsection (2)(a);

(b) the examination of any matters under subsection (3)(b).

(8) The Secretary of State’s examination of the application is a statutory inquiry for the purposes of Schedule 7 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (functions etc. of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council).

(9) Subsection (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (provisions about costs applying where Minister causes a local inquiry to be held) applies in relation to the Secretary of State’s examination of the application as it applies in relation to an inquiry under that section, but with references to the Minister causing the inquiry to be held being read as references to the Secretary of State.

This is subject to subsection (10).

(10) Subsections (6) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (provisions about expenses applying where Minister causes a local inquiry to be held) apply in relation to the Secretary of State’s examination of the application in so far as relating to a hearing held in Scotland as they apply in relation to an inquiry under that section, but with references to the Minister causing the inquiry to be held being read as references to the Secretary of State.

(11) In subsection (10) “hearing” means—

(a) any meeting or hearing that the Secretary of State causes to be held for the purposes of the Secretary of State’s examination of the application, or

(b) a site visit.’.—[John Healey.]

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

New Clause 13

Development for which development consent may be granted

‘(1) Development consent may be granted for development which is—

(a) development for which development consent is required, or

(b) associated development.

(2) “Associated development” means development which—

(a) is associated with the development within subsection (1)(a) (or any part of it),

(b) is not the construction or extension of one or more dwellings, and

(c) is within subsection (3) or (3).

(3) Development is within this subsection if it is to be carried out wholly in one or more of the following areas—

(a) England;

(b) waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;

(c) in the case of development in the field of energy, a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.

(4) Development is within this subsection if—

(a) it is to be carried out wholly in Wales,

(b) it is the carrying out or construction of surface works, boreholes or pipes, and

(c) the development within subsection (1)(a)with which it is associated is development within section 16(3).

(5) To the extent that development consent is granted for associated development, section 31 applies to the development as it applies to development for which development consent is required.

(6) In deciding whether development is associated development, a Panel or the Council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.’.—[John Healey.]

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

New Clause 39

Legal challenges relating to nuisance etc.

‘No proceedings, whether criminal or civil, in nuisance and no civil proceedings in respect of the escape of things from land, other than proceedings for breach of statutory duty, may be brought in relation to development, works or operations authorised by an order granting development consent.’.—[Mr. Betts.]

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

New Clause 40

Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates

‘(1) This section applies where—

(a) the Commission has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and

(b) the application includes a request for an order granting development consent to authorise compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land (a “compulsory acquisition request”).

(2) The applicant must give to the Commission a notice specifying the names, and such other information as may be prescribed, of each affected person.

(3) Notice under subsection (2) must be given in such form and manner as may be prescribed.

(4) A person is an “affected person” for the purposes of this section if the applicant, after making diligent inquiry, knows that the person is interested in the land to which the compulsory acquisition request relates or any part of that land.’.—[Mr. Betts.]

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

New Clause 41

Compulsory acquisition hearings

‘(1) This section applies where the application includes a request for an order granting development consent to authorise compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land (a “compulsory acquisition request”).

(2) The Examining authority must fix, and cause each affected person to be informed of, the deadline by which an affected person must notify the Commission that the person wishes a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.

(3) If the Commission receives notification from at least one affected person before the deadline, the Examining authority must cause a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held.

(4) At a compulsory acquisition hearing, the following are entitled (subject to the Examining authority’s powers of control over the conduct of the hearing) to make oral representations about the compulsory acquisition request—

(a) the applicant;

(b) each affected person.

(5) A person is an “affected person” for the purposes of this section if the person’s name has been given to the Commission in a notice under section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates].’.—[Mr. Betts.]

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

New Clause 42

Local impact reports

‘(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Commission—

(a) has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and

(b) has received—

(i) a certificate under section 55(2) in relation to the application, and

(ii) where section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application.

(2) The Commission must give notice in writing to each of the following, inviting them to submit a local impact report to it—

(a) each authority which, in relation to the application, is a relevant local authority within the meaning given by section 95(5), and

(b) the Greater London Authority if the land to which the application relates, or any part of it, is in Greater London.

(3) A “local impact report” is a report in writing giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development in the authority’s area (or any part of that area).

(4) “The proposed development” is the development for which the application seeks development consent.

(5) A notice under subsection (2) must specify the deadline for receipt by the Commission of the local impact report.

(6) The deadline is the deadline for completion of the examination of the application by a Panel or a single Commissioner (see section).’.—[Mr. Betts.]

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

Clause 1

The Infrastructure Planning Commission

Amendment proposed: No. 339, page 1, line 7 at end insert—

‘(2A) Decisions taken by the Commission as part of any function conferred on it shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State.

(2B) The Secretary of State must decide whether or not to confirm any such decision by the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the Secretary of State received the decision.’.—[Mr. Grogan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Order. May I say to the House that this is programmed business, and that the amount of time taken to complete that Division was intolerable in the circumstances? I hope that hon. Members will move more quickly through the Division Lobby, should the House decide upon another Division.

I understand that amendments Nos. 340 to 355, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), have been accepted by the Government. I am therefore prepared to select them for separate Division. We will deal first with amendments Nos. 340 and 341.

Clause 56

Initial choice of Panel or single Commissioner

Amendments made: No. 340, in page 33, line 3, after “received”, insert “(i)”.

No. 341, in page 33, line 4, after “application”, insert,

“, and

(ii) where section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application.”.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 85

Written representations

Amendment proposed: No. 66, in page 44, line 5, at end insert

“, subject to the right of interested parties to make oral representations.”.—[Mr. Truswell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If the hon. Gentleman could wait until we have completed these votes, we can deal with it then.

Written representations

Amendment made: No. 342, page 44, line 7, after ‘86’, insert ‘, [Compulsory acquisition hearings]’.—[John Healey.]

Clause 88

Hearings: general provisions

Amendments made: No. 343, page 45, line 1, after ‘86(2)’, insert—

‘(aa) to a compulsory acquisition hearing (see section [Compulsory acquisition hearings]),’.

No. 344, page 45, line 10, leave out ‘an interested party’ and insert ‘another person’.

No. 345, page 45, line 15, after ‘86(3)’, insert ‘, [Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)’.

No. 346, page 45, line 16, leave out ‘an interested party’ and insert ‘another person’.

No. 347, page 45, line 23, after ‘86(3)’, insert ‘, [Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)’.

No. 348, page 45, line 29, leave out ‘an interested party’ and insert ‘another person’.

No. 350, page 45, line 32, leave out ‘an interested party’ and insert ‘a person’.

No. 351, page 45, line 32, leave out ‘party’s’ and insert ‘person’s’.

No. 352, page 45, line 35, after ‘86(3)’, insert ‘, [Compulsory acquisition hearings](4)’.—[John Healey.]

Clause 89

Hearings: disruption, supervision and costs

Amendment made: No. 353, page 46, line 8, at end insert—

‘(ba) a compulsory acquisition hearing (see section [Compulsory acquisition hearings],’—[John Healey.]

Clause 97

Decisions of Panel and Council

Amendment made: No. 349, page 49, line 22, at end insert—

‘(aa) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section [Local impact reports](3)) submitted to the Commission before the deadline specified in a notice under section [Local impact reports](2),’.—[John Healey.]

Clause 98

Decisions of Secretary of State

Amendment made: No. 355, page 50, line 7, at end insert—

‘(za) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section [Local impact reports](3)) submitted to the Commission before the deadline specified in a notice under section [Local impact reports](2),’.—[John Healey.]

Clause 100

Timetable for decisions

Amendments made: No. 103, page 50, line 30, after ‘decision-maker’, insert

‘by virtue of section 96(1)’.

No. 104, page 50, line 32, at end insert—

‘(d) in a case where the Secretary of State is the decision-maker by virtue of section [Effect of intervention](2)(b), the deadline for the completion of the Secretary of State’s examination of the application under section [Effect of intervention](2)(a).’.—[John Healey.]

Clause 102

When power to intervene arises

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 51, line 38, after ‘applies’, insert ‘by virtue of this section’. —[John Healey.]

Amendment made: No. 354, in page 52, line 2, after ‘55(2)’, insert

‘, and (where section [Notice of persons interested in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates] applies, a notice under that section,’.—[Mr. Betts.]

Amendments made: No. 106, page 52, line 3, leave out ‘either the condition in subsection (2) or’.

No. 107, page 52, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—[John Healey.]

Clause 103

Power of Secretary of State to intervene

Amendments made: No. 108, page 52, line 30, after ‘(4)’, insert

‘In a case where this section applies by virtue of section 102,’

No. 109, page 52, line 31, leave out ‘102(2) or (3)’ and insert ‘102(3)’.—[John Healey.]

Clause 104

Effect of intervention by Secretary of State

Amendment made: No. 110, page 52, line 32, leave out Clause 104.—[John Healey.]

Clause 105

Grant or refusal of development consent

Amendments made: No. 111, page 53, line 28, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision regulating the procedure to be followed if the decision-maker proposes to make an order granting development consent on terms which are materially different to those proposed in the application.’.

No. 112, page 53, line 29, leave out subsections (2) to (7).—[John Healey.]

Clause 130

When development begins

Amendments made: No. 161, page 67, line 23, after ‘in’, insert

‘, or carried out for the purposes of,’.

No. 162, page 67, line 25, leave out from ‘means’ to end of line 37 and insert

‘any operation except an operation of a prescribed description.’.—[John Healey.]

Clause 131

Benefit of development consent orders

Amendments made: No. 163, page 67, line 42, after ‘to’, insert ‘subsection (3) and’.

No. 164, page 67, line 42, at end insert—

‘(3) To the extent that the development for which development consent is granted is development within section 16(3), the order granting the consent has effect for the benefit of a person for the time being interested in the land only if the person is a gas transporter.

(4) “Gas transporter” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (see section 7(1) of that Act).’.—[John Healey.]

I should inform the House at this stage that Government new schedule 1, which is marshalled next on the amendment paper, comes under the heading of remaining proceedings in the programme motion made earlier today, and so will be decided at 7 pm.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether your attention has been brought to the news that the knighthood that was recommended to Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, in 1994 by the last Conservative Government is to be withdrawn. Could you advise the House on how we can send a message of thanks and congratulations on this wise decision by Her Majesty the Queen, not least because of early-day motion 1406, signed by 99 Members of this House and tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has found an effective way of announcing that to the House, and I have no doubt that ways can be found, certainly not under the guise of a point of order, for this matter to be pursued or otherwise discussed.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A year ago today, my constituency was devastated by floods, and a year on, the Pitt report has been produced. Back Benchers, and those on the Opposition Front Bench, did not receive copies of that report until today, whereas members of the press received copies yesterday. Is that an appropriate way for information to be distributed? I know that Mr. Speaker has taken action on statements, to ensure that Members receive information from Ministers at least at the same time as members of the press.

I cannot make an immediate comment on that, but I am sure that Mr. Speaker will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he believes that further action is required, he will no doubt take that appropriate action.

New Clause 30

Power to decline to determine applications: amendments

‘Schedule [Power to decline to determine applications: amendments] (power to decline to determine applications: amendments) has effect.’.—[Caroline Flint.]

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:

New clause 2—Evidence on applications, appeals and inquiries—

‘After section 323 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there is inserted—

“323A Evidence on applications, appeals and inquiries

(1) If an applicant for planning permission or any director, servant, agent or person on the applicant’s behalf, for the purpose of procuring a grant of planning permission—

(a) knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular;

(b) with intent to deceive, uses any document which is false or misleading in a material particular; or

(c) with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) If any person, for the purpose of procuring a particular decision on an appeal, application which it has been directed should be referred to the Secretary of State or on proceedings for the confirmation of an order by the Secretary of State, under this Act—

(a) knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular;

(b) with intent to deceive, uses any document which is false or misleading in a material particular; or

(c) with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.

(4) Any person giving expert evidence, whether orally or in writing, to an inquiry or hearing held under this Act shall make a declaration that the evidence they give shall be their professional opinion.”’.

New clause 3—Amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 71A insert—

“71B Telecommunications masts: precautionary principle statement

(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a precautionary principle statement (“the statement”).

(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeal, shall—

(a) make copies of the statement available for inspection, and

(b) indicate how representations can be made in respect of the statement,

in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.

(3) A local planning authority in considering an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, or the Secretary of State on an appeal against a determination or non-determination, shall not make a decision until it, or he, has first taken into account the information contained within the statement and any representations received in respect of that information.

(4) Where the statement indicates that there is a threat of damage to health or the environment, it shall not be a ground for granting planning permission that there is a lack of full scientific certainty about the extent of the threat of damage to health or the environment.

71C Telecommunications masts: beam of greatest intensity certificate

(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a certificate (“the certificate”) which sets out—

(a) the area and maximum range of the beam of greatest intensity,

(b) the minimum and maximum distances at ground level of the beam of greatest intensity,

(c) an explanation of the way in which the intensity of radiation falls off with distance from an antennae and of the level of the intensity of radiofrequency radiation,

(d) an indication of where the beam of greatest intensity falls and the nearest and farthest distance from the antenna to these points.

(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeals shall—

(a) make copies of the certificate available for inspection, and

(b) indicate how representations can be made,

in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.

(3) Where a beam of greatest intensity falls on any part of any premises or land occupied by or consisting of an educational or medical facility, or of residential property, planning permission shall not be granted before first taking into account the information contained within the certificate, and any representations received in respect of that information.

(4) For the purposes of section 71B and this section—

 “beam of greatest intensity” means where the greatest exposure to the  radiofrequency radiation signal occurs;

  “educational facility” means any premises used for the education of  children and young adults, whether such education is full or part time,  and includes a nursery school;

  “electronic communications code” means the code set out in Schedule 2  to the Telecommunications Act 1984;

  “exempted apparatus” means—

(a) a public call box, or

(b) an antenna which cannot be used for receiving a signal transmitted from a telecommunications mast, and

(c) radio equipment which cannot be used in connection with a telecommunications mast;

  “medical facility” means any premises used for medical treatment or  care;

  “precautionary principle statement” means a statement accompanying  an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts  and associated apparatus which describes the effect upon the  environment or human health which might arise from the installation  or use of the telecommunications masts and associated apparatus;

  “telecommunications masts and associated apparatus” has the same  meaning as the term “electronic communications apparatus” in the  electronic communications code, except that the definition of that term  does not include exempted apparatus.”.’.

New clause 4—Amendment of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, etc.—

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).

(2) In Article 1(2) (interpretation), at the appropriate place in alphabetical order, insert—

““electronic communications code” means the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984;

“exempted apparatus” means—

(a) a public call box, or

(b) an antenna which cannot be used for receiving a signal transmitted from a telecommunications mast, and

(c) radio equipment which cannot be used in connection with a telecommunications mast;

“telecommunications masts and associated apparatus” has the same meaning as the term “electronic communications apparatus” in the electronic communications code except that the definition of that term does not include exempted apparatus.”

(3) In Part 2 of Schedule 2 (minor operations) at end insert—

“Class D

Permitted development

D Development which consists of—

(a) the use of land by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for a period not exceeding 3 months to provide access for and station temporary moveable telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, which is required for the sole purpose of temporarily replacing unserviceable telecommunications masts and associated apparatus; or

(b) the replacement of telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, including associated equipment and structures and the provision of means of access, which is required for the operation of the Electronic Communications Code Operator’s system where such existing telecommunications masts and associated apparatus has become unserviceable.

Development not permitted

D1 Development is not permitted by Class D if the telecommunications masts and associated apparatus are not of the same type and capacity as the unserviceable masts and associated apparatus they are to replace.

Interpretation of Class D

D2 For the purposes of Class D “moveable telecommunications masts and associated apparatus” means masts and apparatus attached to a vehicle, trailer or moveable structure.”.

(4) In Part 17 of Schedule 2 (development by statutory undertakers), in paragraph A1 (development not permitted), after subparagraph (c) insert “or

(d) telecommunications masts and associated apparatus.”

(5) Part 24 of Schedule 2 (development by electronic communications code operators) is revoked.

(6) Part 25 of Schedule 2 (other telecommunications development) is revoked.

(7) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2718) is revoked.

(8) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/1878) is revoked.’.

New clause 36—Appeals against enforcement notices—

‘(1) Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a).’.

New clause 38—Development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers—

‘In Schedule 2, Part 17, Section A.1(c)(i) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 after second ‘building’, insert ‘, plant or machinery’.’.

Amendment No. 300, in clause 149, page 77, line 7, leave out ‘the regional development agency for its region’ and insert

‘a local authority for an area within its region (whether singly or jointly with other local authorities)’.

Amendment No. 311, page 77, leave out lines 10 to 21.

Amendment No. 301, page 77, line 12, leave out ‘the regional development agency for the region’ and insert

‘a local authority for an area within the region (whether singly or jointly with other local authorities)’.

Amendment No. 302, page 77, line 18, leave out ‘the regional development agency for the region’ and insert

‘a local authority for an area within the region (whether singly or jointly with other local authorities)’.

Amendment No. 303, page 77, line 23, leave out ‘regional development agency’ and insert ‘local authority’.

Amendment No. 304, page 77, line 25 , leave out ‘regional development agency’ and insert ‘local authority’.

Amendment No. 312, page 77, leave out lines 29 and 30.

Amendment No. 305, page 77, line 31, leave out ‘regional development agency’ and insert ‘local authority’.

Amendment No. 306, page 77, line 36, leave out ‘regional development agency’ and insert ‘local authority’.

Amendment No. 313, page 77, leave out lines 38 to 40.

Amendment No. 307, page 77, line 39, leave out ‘regional development agency’ and insert ‘local authority’.

Amendment No. 308, page 78, leave out lines 1 to 28.

Amendment No. 290, in clause 155, page 84, line 2, at end insert—

‘(7) A local planning authority may arrange for the discharge of their functions under this section by a panel of elected members drawn from other local planning authorities.’.

Amendment No. 2, page 84, line 37, at end insert—

‘(2A) In section 78 (appeals to the Secretary of State against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and—

(a) the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;

(b) the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316;

(c) the planning application falls within the definition of “major applications”, as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose;

(d) the planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment; or

(e) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission,

certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.

(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are—

(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;

(b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.”.

(2B) In section 79—

(a) in subsection (2), leave out “either” and after “planning authority” insert “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;

(b) in subsection (6), after “the determination”, insert “(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B))”.’.

Government amendments Nos. 190 to 193

Amendment No. 329, in clause 161 page 93, line 34, after ‘(3B)’, insert ‘Subject to subsection (3C),’.

Amendment No. 323, page 93, line 36, after second ‘development’, insert

‘within the curtilage of a dwelling house’.

Government amendment No. 194

Amendment No. 330, page 94, line 4, at end add—

‘(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B) the Secretary of State may by order prescribe the development orders, or the classes of development described as permitted development in those orders, to which that subsection applies.’.

Government amendments Nos. 195 to 198

Government new schedule 5—‘Power to decline to determine applications: amendments.

Government amendment No. 275

Government amendments Nos. 280 to 286

We now turn to matters pertaining to part 9 of the Bill, including a number of measures that we hope will streamline and speed up the planning system. I understand that those policies were generally welcomed in Committee, although a number of hon. Members had queries about how some things might work in practice. We propose six sets of Government amendments that will make the provisions clearer and easier to use. I will try, in a thematic way, to cover the issues raised and the way in which we deal with them in our amendments, and to respond to the amendments tabled by the Opposition and by some of my hon. Friends.

First, clause 149 enables the regional assembly to delegate its regional planning functions to the regional development agency. The clause is effective only where the regional assembly chooses to use it and the RDA agrees. Moreover, it enables only delegation, not transfer of planning functions. I know that concerns were expressed in Committee, and have been expressed since, that we may be accused of pre-empting the new legislation required to implement the sub-national review proposals. That is absolutely not the case. I would like to make it absolutely clear that the clause leaves unchanged the ultimate responsibility for regional planning to regional assemblies, whose membership is predominantly drawn from elected local government.

Amendments Nos. 300 to 308 would replace references to the regional development agency with

“a local authority for an area within its region (whether singly or jointly)”.

First, regional assemblies can already delegate planning work to local authorities so there is no need for legislation to that effect. Secondly, those changes would mean that they were not allowed to delegate to the RDA, even if they wanted to, because RDAs are currently precluded from doing such work.

Amendments Nos. 311 to 313, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), would mean that a regional assembly could delegate its work to the RDA, but if the Secretary of State were undertaking the same functions, she would not be able to do so. Under planning legislation there is a reserve power for the Secretary of State to act as the regional planning body. This is, of course, a last resort to be used if there were a very serious problem, such as the collapse of the regional assembly. In such a case, the Secretary of State may want to involve the RDA and the amendments would prevent that from happening.

I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend on this matter; I tabled amendments just to express concern and raise the issue. Is she saying that those transfers would be encouraged on a voluntary and agreeable basis, and that the power is one of absolute last resort, which the Secretary of State would use only in those circumstances?

Absolutely. That is a very clear explanation of what we are saying. The power is one of last resort. We will not take planning powers away from regional assemblies in advance of new legislation, and we will make sure that the Secretary of State undertakes the role of a regional planning body only as a last resort. Only if the regional assembly were to cease to function, or refuse to carry out its duties, which I hope is highly unlikely, might we need to resort to delegating, but not transferring, powers to the RDA.

While I am reassured that the current Minister would regard the transference and exercise of those powers by a Minister as an act of last resort, we know from experience that assurances given at the Dispatch Box are not tantamount to guarantees out in the country. What reassurance can we have that a less benign Minister—someone who prefers to centralise such decisions more than she would—would not use that power to centralise decision making and sweep away local democracy?

Clause 149 makes it clear that the delegation of planning functions to the regional development agency could happen only when the regional assembly chooses to use that power and the RDA agrees. That should be enough. I hope that those assurances are sufficient to enable hon. Members to decide not to press their amendments.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding so positively. I look forward to those discussions, and on that basis, it will not be necessary to press the amendments.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to take that course of action. We are trying to work constructively.

The Minister did not hear what I said. I said that I was grateful to her, that I looked forward to discussing the matter with her and that, in the light of that constructive approach, it would not be necessary to press the amendments.

Thank you very much. I have been praised twice on the record; that is not too bad. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support.

Local member review bodies have created huge debate in local authorities and among those in the planning profession. Several hon. Members have supported the principle of local member review bodies, for which clauses 155 to 158 provide, while pointing out that it is important to sort out how they work in practice. We have discussed the provisions extensively with local government and planning professionals to explore that. I have also received several representations about what is workable. We need to consider whether, given the large number of planning reforms that we are asking local planning authorities to implement, it is also right to ask them to focus on the initiative.

Although I recognise that amendment No. 290 seeks to be helpful, it would be contrary to the principle of local accountability on which our proposals are based. It would allow local planning authorities to discharge their local member review body functions through panels of elected members drawn entirely from other local authorities. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.

Government amendments Nos. 190, 191 and 192 are minor technical amendments to ensure that, when delegated cases are exceptionally determined by a committee or sub-committee of a local authority in the first instance, the right of appeal to the Secretary of State remains. Amendment No. 190 inserts the necessary provisions for planning applications under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 insert parallel provisions in relation to applications for lawful use or development certificates and in relation to applications for listed building consent. As I have said, there remain a number of important matters to work through on that proposal, and we may have something further to say when the Bill reaches another place.

Turning to development consents, I should like to deal with three sets of largely technical amendments, the purpose of which is to make the development control system run more smoothly. Clause 159 deals with repeat applications and twin tracking. Government new clause 30, Government new schedule 5 and Government amendment No. 193 replace clause 159 and enhance the provision already in the Bill. They do so, first, by ensuring that the provisions dealing with repeat applications and twin tracking cover cases where an application is deemed to have been made by way of an enforcement appeal, and, secondly, in the case of twin tracking, by ensuring that applications made on the same day are covered.

Government amendment No. 195 modifies the provisions in clause 162, which concerns non-material changes to a planning permission. Government amendment No. 195 has the effect that where an applicant has an interest in some but not all of the land to which a planning permission relates, the power can be exercised only in relation to that part of the land in which he or she has an interest.

The third set of technical amendments relates to clause 163(3), which concerns challenges to decisions called in by the Secretary of State on applications under development orders. Government amendments Nos. 196 and 286 relate to the current drafting of subsection (3), which contains the words “Secretary of State”. That wording potentially causes a problem for Welsh Ministers, since it might be contested that the term “Secretary of State” does not include Welsh Ministers. Our amendments fix that problem by removing the words “Secretary of State”.

Let me turn to the issues relating to trees. Government amendments Nos. 197, 198, 275, and 280 to 285 are all related to clause 164, which, together with clause 165, I hope will simplify and bring uniformity to the existing system for making and maintaining tree preservation orders. The provisions in those clauses were generally well received in Committee. I hope that the amendments make further small but helpful improvements. In particular, they allow for regulations to permit a local planning authority to impose a time limit on consents for work to protected trees. Currently, consent given for pruning or felling protected trees lasts in perpetuity. However, where approved work has been delayed by several years, it may no longer be appropriate to undertake the work.

Those amendments also allow for regulations to make provisions ensuring that trees planted as replacements for those that are felled with consent are automatically protected, unless that provision is waived by the local planning authority. In addition, those amendments will ensure that it is an offence not only to carry out unauthorised tree works to protected trees, but to commission a third party to carry out the work on someone’s behalf.

Let me turn to some non-Bill-related measures. There are six amendments that we do not feel relate to the Government’s agenda in part 9: Amendments Nos. 2 and new clauses 2, 3, 4, 36 and 38. I hope to persuade hon. Members that those amendments should not be pressed. Let me deal first with amendment No. 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), which concerns third-party rights of appeal. Amendment No. 2 would establish a third party right of appeal against decisions on planning applications. Of course interested parties have the opportunity to have their say on planning cases, but we do not think a third party right of appeal is desirable.

First, a third party right of appeal would dramatically increase the work load on the appeal system and cause significant delays in issuing decisions, and could also be used perversely to delay many otherwise acceptable developments. In addition, third parties have an opportunity to make their views known through representations at the application stage, via elected councillors, who have a responsibility to act in the general public interest. We in the Department are already working on a review of the planning application process and are also considering ways in which we can make community engagement far more constructive in planning applications at the local level.

The Minister will be aware that, in effect, developers currently have two opportunities to appeal against planning conditions, first at the application stage and again, retrospectively, once the cement is dry. Many people who are uncomfortable about the power of developers feel that they are not on a level playing field. Given what the Minister has just said, which I find reassuring, what can she say to those citizens who feel that developers have it more their way?

The hon. Gentleman is right to make a case about how development is viewed. One of the problems we face is that planning is often seen as bureaucratic and distant, while development is seen as bad. None of those descriptions is a reality, but there is more we could do on that front. It is important for local authorities to get on with their local development frameworks because that is one way to engage communities in their wider vision for their neighbourhoods.

The local development framework is a very important document when it comes to assessing future planning applications. That is why we are adopting a number of different activities to improve the basis on which local authorities take decisions on planning applications. They should be based on the vision that communities have, what they need for infrastructure and everything else. Authorities should also look for more imaginative ways of involving communities at the local development framework stage, but also in different ways during the planning process. We often hear the voices of those in communities who are against, but we do not necessarily hear the voices of those who are for, particularly those who do not have a roof over their heads, for example. We are trying to work through some of that, but with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I am not sure that the amendment provides the right answer, so I hope that he will withdraw it.

In a sense, I understand that we should be looking at the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but I wanted to look further into how communities can advance their views. I agree with the Minister about the local development framework. The problem is that as those frameworks evolve, communities do not often get the opportunity—and they certainly lack the voice—to make the necessary representations. If the Minister would like to talk to me some time about the possibility of a community enhancement Bill, we could look further into how to give communities the voice they need.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We recently relaunched planning policy statement 25, which relates to local development frameworks. We also provide online some of the best examples of how local authorities have gone about developing those frameworks, and we refresh that information every six months. That should enable communities and those working in planning departments to have a look at the best approaches. We have also streamlined some of the arrangements by reassuring local authorities that they do not need as many of the documents as they think they need for the local development frameworks. What we want is a clear expression of the vision. We want to ensure that it is easy to develop and easy to convey, while allowing input from the local community.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments in dismissing the amendment on third party rights of appeal, does she not accept that many communities need further checks and balances, particularly where an application contravenes a planning policy but is nevertheless passed, where it works on the margins of local planning policy, or where, as in my constituency, the regional development agency has been involved in instructing a developer to apply for a certain number of houses, knowing full well that the RDA will have a role in determining the outcome of the application later in the process? Surely in those circumstances, it would be appropriate to have a more transparent mechanism by which the local community could have a third party right of appeal?

As I have said, I am not convinced of the argument that we need such a mechanism, but there is a lot more that we could do to make earlier parts of the planning process more inclusive and more accessible. There is a statutory obligation on local planning authorities to produce a statement of community involvement and policies for public involvement in planning functions in section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about some of his concerns, I will try to share with him some of our ideas for improving community engagement.

I would like to correct myself; I have issued so much new guidance recently. PPS25, which we updated the other week, deals with floods; it is PPS12 that relates to the local development frameworks.

New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), would make it a criminal offence to give false information on planning applications and appeals. We do not have evidence that that is a widespread problem. With very few exceptions, such as when information is sensitive, all documentation relating to a planning application or appeal is made public, and can therefore be challenged. The Planning Inspectorate already has plans to require witnesses to endorse claims that their evidence is true and represents their professional opinion. It can also take evidence under oath to establish the facts, although that is rarely considered necessary.

I tabled the new clause following representations made to me by a constituent who was the victim of a planning application on a neighbouring site that had been made on the basis of what he believed to be false information. On investigation, I saw that there was no sanction in law to deal with cases in which an individual obtains planning permission by giving false information on an application. I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment, as it were, to test the Government and establish whether they knew that the problem existed. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that she would be prepared to discuss the matter further.

Obviously, when individual cases occur we should be mindful of them. As I have said, according to the Planning Inspectorate there is no evidence that the problem is widespread, and public documents presented during the process are open to challenge. We fear that routinely checking the accuracy of documentation relating to the large number of applications that are submitted would hinder the speed and efficiency of both the application and the appeal stage.

The current system is generally trusted, and its decisions are respected. For us to change it, we would require substantial evidence that it was being extensively abused. I accept that the case raised by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituent is important, but I can tell him that the fraudulent obtaining of planning permission is a ground for judicial review, so there is some recourse to the law for individuals.

I do not want to prolong this conversation, because I want to allow other Members to talk about the community infrastructure levy. I shall not be pressing the new clause to a vote.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach.

New clauses 3 and 4 deal with health and permitted development rights in connection with telecommunications. Our policy on health in relation to telecommunications is clear: the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. That view is clearly stated in planning policy guidance note 8 on telecommunications, and supported by the National Radiological Protection Board.

All telecommunications masts should comply with the international guidelines on radiation set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. We believe that those guidelines provide the necessary level of protection for the public, and that submission of a “precautionary principle” or “beam of greatest intensity” statement is not necessary.

New clause 4 would revoke a range of permitted development rights relating to telecommunications masts and associated equipment. We believe that our planning policy in that regard strikes a balance between allowing local residents to have their say in development proposals and ensuring that our telecommunications network remains fit for purpose. We are currently reviewing the permitted development rights relating to electronic communications code operators, and if we decide that change is needed we will consult publicly on any options. New clause 4 would circumvent any public consultation and full consideration of an important planning issue.

New clause 36, tabled by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), would remove ground (a), one of the seven grounds for making an appeal against an enforcement notice. I understand that the hon. Members’ concern is focused on those who carry out development in breach of the conditions of a planning permission and appeal on ground (a) when subsequently served with an enforcement notice.

If a breach of condition is the sole reason for taking enforcement action, the local planning authority can serve a breach of condition notice against which there can be no appeal. If the breach is not remedied within the specified period, the developer has committed an offence and is liable to prosecution. I therefore believe that local planning authorities have sufficient powers to deal with this issue, and that the removal of ground (a) would cause unnecessary administrative difficulties for the parties concerned. I hope I have reassured the hon. Members that the current system is the most efficient way of dealing with the issue.

Moving on to the development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers, new clause 38 would remove permitted development rights for statutory undertakers to undertake essential maintenance and development work without first obtaining planning permission. Permitted development rights for statutory undertakers are well established and rightly allow a large number of routine but essential works to proceed without the need for planning permission. It would not be right to restrict these rights generally, but there may be problems in specific cases. Statutory undertakers should publicise any plans for permitted development if they consider that it might affect amenity or environment. That would give an opportunity for the local planning authority to consider whether to make an article 4 direction requiring the statutory undertaker to apply for planning permission. I believe that these arrangements generally work well. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall has evidence that that is not the case, I will be happy to discuss it further, but at present I think we should retain the current position.

We are rapidly running out of time in our consideration of the Bill, and we now come to a second significant group of amendments, but before I start addressing it let me welcome the Minister to our deliberations. I think she is the fifth Minister with whom I have now debated aspects of this Bill, so clearly the entire departmental team feels it is worthy of their time and attention.

First, let me address the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). The Minister recently referred to telecommunications masts, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to expand on the topic, so all I will say is that he has campaigned on it for a long time. I dispute the Minister’s comments on the balance being right, however; many of our constituents feel that it is not quite right, and that there are insufficient opportunities for people to contest decisions about telecommunications masts, and in terms not only of health, but of other matters such as their visual impact.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I have tabled amendments to improve the planning system, particularly in enforcement; again, the Minister recently discussed that. Planning conditions can make a huge difference to a community’s tolerance of whether a particular application is acceptable. Often, our constituents can be dissatisfied about an application winning approval, but hard-won conditions mean that they at least feel that their views have been taken on board as part of the process. However, if a developer then goes on to flout those conditions, as happens all too often, it serves to undermine people’s faith in the planning system—their faith that their views can effect change and are taken into account. One of our amendments seeks to remove one of the opportunities developers have to apply retrospectively for the lifting of a condition that had been made when the planning application was considered. That would encourage people to believe that their views are being taken into account.

New clause 38 addresses permitted development rights for railways. I should note that I informed the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) that I would refer to an issue that was raised with me by some of his constituents, and that he is aware that we will discuss it. The Minister was kind enough to say that if there are specific problems around permitted development rights, she will look into them, and I will pass on the information that has been passed to me. This particular case involves Southern railway having built a substantial plant to clean trains. It is not a minor plant at the edge of a station, as some Members might think, but a substantial building that cause problems of noise and light pollution to local residents, and they feel that it is the sort of structure that should have been covered by a planning application. I accept that there is a strong case for permitted development rights for smaller additions to ensure that institutions such as railways can operate effectively without having to make a planning application for every minor change. However, the local community would clearly feel that it should have its views taken into account in the case of a significant building.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has, as ever, done considerable work in tabling amendments, especially on the proposed planning powers for regional development agencies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik)—who is no longer in his place—said, some suspicion may remain, despite the Minister’s helpful reassurances, that we may be seeing a centralisation of power and an undermining of the democratic accountability of local authorities and their ability to take planning decisions. I have made the case in the past that RDAs are the correct repository for some of those powers. I appreciate the problems, and the Government have announced that regional assemblies are not long for this world. That situation needs to be resolved, but RDAs were set up with clear and limited objectives, and it is perhaps asking too much of them to take on these powers as well.

Does my hon. Friend share my chief concern that the RDAs, which report to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, have a primary focus on economic development, rather than the wider issues of sustainability and housing development, so their priorities will differ from those of other organisations? Does he also share my concern that there are currently no satisfactory accountability processes for RDAs? In theory, that takes place through the regional Ministers, but although they are in place, there is no way to hold the RDAs to account.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and her point is reminiscent of a debate we had in earlier consideration of the Bill, when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was keen to ensure that the IPC took account of environmental and sustainability concerns to a greater degree than had been guaranteed by the Government’s amendments. Bodies that are established by the Government with a narrow set of objectives will naturally seek to meet those objectives and they may well not therefore prioritise other aspects such as sustainability.

Local member review has been controversial in some areas and we have been lobbied on the issue. I remain convinced that it is a helpful move in the right direction, and I hope that it will be defended. That would encourage people to believe that accountability is indeed being strengthened.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is no longer in his place, has withdrawn his amendment after reassurance from the Minister. Despite what I had to say about permitted development rights in another context, most of the issues about which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned are slightly different from those that I described, such as the case of a major light industrial building in an urban area. I am pleased that the Minister is continuing to negotiate on those issues and that we can reach a resolution that will satisfy those in the farming industry that their rights are being protected.

I am pleased that the issues around RDAs are being aired because they are a cause for concern to many people in the House and outside. I also look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove—if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—on the issue of telecommunications masts.

I rise to speak to new clause 38, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). As he said, it seeks to respond to a railway development by the side of Streatham Hill station in my constituency that has blighted the lives of many of my constituents who live in Sternhold avenue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to refer to my constituency in the debate.

The problem for my constituents arises from the construction in 2005-06 of five new platforms, three 300 m long canopies and eight new lighting columns at the railway sidings that immediately abut the rear garden walls of the homes in Sternhold avenue. Not only is there now cleaning and maintenance activity throughout the day and night at the sidings, but the sheer presence and visual impact of the columns and canopies is horrendous. The local topography means that the sidings stand on higher ground than the adjacent houses, so the canopies tower over the homes up to a height of 7.5 m, and at a distance from some homes of only 12 m. For all those poor residents, it is like having a highly modernistic airport terminal building at the bottom of their garden.

Is this not almost déjà vu for the right hon. Gentleman? He dealt with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for the Government when I was the Opposition spokesman, and he will recall that that Act exempted Crown exemptions, so that the Crown now has to apply for planning permission. Does he not think that these utilities should be treated in the same way so that when large infrastructure is involved—such as the example from his constituency—they ought to have to seek planning permission?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that trip down memory lane. He is right to say that we had many exchanges on these matters. Although I contend that it would be inappropriate for every item of plant or machinery to be subject to planning consent, the point that I want to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister is that the Lichfield report anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a condition ought to be applied for the development of large infrastructure on railway land.

The Lichfield review of the GPDO suggests in two places that there is a need to consider introducing a distance restriction on developments that might involve night-time activity and visual impacts near residential areas. Paragraph 30 of chapter 21 of the report deals with part 17 of the GPDO, which discusses a failed attempt by a local authority to resist a particular railway development. The report says:

“Whilst it is not clear that this is other than isolated case, it suggests the need to consider whether some restriction of Class A development should apply within a specified distance of residential properties”.

The following paragraph recommends that further consideration be given to clarifying whether buildings related to the washing and maintenance of railway vehicles should not be defined as an industrial process, as is the case with the Scottish GPDO. Interestingly, the report goes on to say:

“This would have some potential for adverse impacts on residential amenity, although this may perhaps be addressed by a condition requiring a minimum distance, e.g. 50 metres, from residential premises.”

In 2003, when the Lichfield report was prepared, it seemed that there could be a problem with intrusive railway developments close to people’s homes. Today, in 2008, the Sternhold avenue case shows that such a problem exists: it would therefore be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would undertake to consider amending the GPDO along the lines suggested by Lichfield and bringing forward appropriate secondary legislation in due course.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I do not want to say too much about the situation in the London borough of Lambeth, as I understand that it is considering further action. I am aware of the Lichfield report but, as he has acknowledged, it is not clear whether the problem is widespread. I should be happy to meet him if he thinks that there is more evidence of a wider problem to do with the development’s proximity to housing, but part of the balance that I have to strike depends on determining how big the problem is. To coin a phrase, we do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that generous offer. It will certainly please my constituents, and I shall certainly avail myself of it, but in her initial statement she referred to the possible use of article 4 directions by local planning authorities to resist undesirable developments of the sort that I have described. She will know that that is not possible under part 11 of the GPDO. In the end, the Sternhold avenue development that has caused so much distress to my constituents was in fact carried out under part 11, and not part 17—the subject of new clause 38.

Like all the permitted development powers, part 11 of the GPDO confers pretty sweeping powers on railway undertakings—for example, it excludes any requirement for an environmental impact assessment. However, there is a requirement for prior approval, albeit limited to grounds of injury to amenity or better siting being possible. In dealing with that part of the GPDO, chapter 15 paragraph 15 of the Lichfield report notes: “Investigation of case studies where part 11 rights have been used failed to find any examples of adverse impacts arising which could not be controlled by local planning authorities”.

It is therefore perfectly clear that local authorities have been able to prevent unreasonable developments. I very much regret that, back in 2002 and later, Lambeth council—at that period under a Liberal Democrat administration—did not use those grounds at least to put the proposals under vigorous scrutiny. At least local residents would then have become aware of the threat at an early stage. It was a missed opportunity, just as the opportunity was missed to take the enforcement action against Southern railway for which those same Lib Dem councillors are now campaigning. With respect to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, new clause 38 seems rather like a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The right hon. Gentleman has highlighted the fact that he was the Minister at the time when the application went through. He has also highlighted the role of Liberal Democrat councillors, but did he consider at the time that the GPDO needed amending? Could he have intervened to do so, not as the constituency MP but as the Minister, on behalf of all local areas that could have experienced a similar situation?

That is a very reasonable intervention. To be entirely accurate, the development somewhat post-dated my tenure as the nation’s Planning Minister. As my remarks have indicated, I did consider carefully the record and history of the GPDO, which we are debating. My feeling was that we were waiting for the council to report on whether the development was permitted, but that at some stage I would want to make a recommendation about the distance factor. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do that.

New clause 38 is about the development of plant or machinery by railway undertakers, and I wish to say a word about the role and responsibilities of precisely the undertakers in the case that I have mentioned—Southern railway and Network Rail. It is all very well for railway undertakers to argue “caveat emptor” when people choose to live next to the railway, but Southern railway and Network Rail deliberately used part 11 of the order, which minimised the opportunities for local consultation and representation. There was no requirement of prior notice to local residents and only the most cursory notification of the commencement of works. The first that most residents knew of what was in store was a matter of weeks before building work began.

I want railway operators to think more about the impact of their activities, which have been the subject of this brief exchange. I cannot conceive of the fact that rail managers, engineers or architects would want to live next door to such a monstrous intrusion into people’s lives. Yes, the GPDO gives enormous leeway to the railway undertaker, but as usual—I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will understand this point—freedom has to be matched with responsibility. In the case that I have mentioned, I do not believe that it was.

Southern railway and Network Rail behaved abominably, but they have the chance to redeem their good name and reputation. The quality of life of my constituents would be greatly improved if the canopy nearest their homes were to be removed. I therefore hope that Southern railway and Network Rail will enter into negotiations with officers and members of Lambeth council as a matter of urgency to remove the canopy nearest the residential properties in Sternhold avenue in my constituency.

It is a pleasure to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having had an opportunity to listen to the points raised in the debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) will forgive me if I do not follow him in covering the detail of his constituency interest. I am conscious that we are exceedingly short of time and that a number of Members wish to contribute, so I shall be as brief as I can.

I start by thanking the Minister for taking on board a number of the points that were made in Committee and in subsequent lobbying. I am glad, too, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has persuaded the Minister that things can be done about permitted development rights for the agriculture industry. I suspect that her colleagues in the Lords may well see the issue covered by new clause 2 re-emerging there, so that we can get further clarification.

I say to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), with whom I shared many happy hours in Committee, that his new clause 4 on mobile phone masts comes close to a position on which we fought the last election. We believe that mobile phone masts should be brought into the mainstream planning system. That is part of the reason we have supported single consent regimes throughout the passage of the Bill. It was also why I tabled amendments to try to bring all the remaining bits of the electricity, pipelines and gas Acts under one planning regime in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

I rise to speak to amendment No. 2, which stands in my name. Its contents are not a million miles away from the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) in Committee, and I should state from the outset that I do not intend to seek the leave of the House to press it to a vote, because I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. I shall be interested to see what the proposed community empowerment, housing and economic regeneration Bill will do to enhance the opportunity of communities to get their point of view across in relation to aspects of the planning process. It might be one of the laws of politics that Oppositions like third party rights of appeal, and that Governments certainly do not, but I still think that there is merit in making the case that the planning process is not accessible, and certainly does not give a voice, to all communities.

Two obvious examples are pertinent to my constituency. First, when councillors on a local authority with planning powers support a particular application but people in the area concerned, which may include the parish or town council, are against it, the people have no voice once the decision has been taken. As has been said, the developer has two bites of the cherry in pursuing an application. Indeed, they may have many more bites, because they can keep resubmitting an application until they get consent, whereas those who oppose such an application have one chance—they have no chance if their councillors choose not to listen to their point of view. Secondly, sometimes people live very close to a particular application that is in a different local authority area. It is not unknown for a local authority as a whole to be against an application, but if the people in the community happen to be on the wrong side of the border, it means that there is no opportunity to make their voices heard. Those are two straightforward examples where a third party right of appeal would be of some benefit.

I know that people will always say that such an approach would not be practical and would be difficult to introduce. However, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred in Committee, use such an approach, so there is good practice out there. We have a problem in this country when it comes to allowing the people to have a voice, even though they may choose to use their voice in a respectable way to exercise their democratic opinion.

I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), has to say. The issue will not go away, because some of us will not let it go away, but this is not the appropriate moment to pursue it. I hope that the Lords will consider the issue and that the next Bill provides proper democratic accountability and an opportunity for people to make their voices heard.

New clauses 3 and 4 did not arrive out of thin air for this debate. They are substantially the same provisions as those included in private Members’ Bills promoted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in 2004, by me in 2005 and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in 2006. Those three Bills were all talked out in one way or another, and we are close to that today, so I hope that you will agree to test the opinion of the House on those new clauses at the appropriate moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the House should have an opportunity to say whether the system should be reformed. Those three Bills were supported by members of not only the three biggest parties but fourth parties, too.

We all have cases involving mobile phone masts in our in-trays. When the House previously considered the matter, the now Minister for Borders and Immigration was saying in his literature that Labour would

“do everything we can to ensure that there are no more phone masts near schools and hospitals”.

I am not sure whether that is still his view.

I want to make it clear to the Minister that the dissatisfaction is based not on party, but on hon. Members’ understanding of the concerns of their communities. The problem is that telecommunications masts were exempted from planning control in 1984. The huge elephant in the room is that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer received some £30 billion for licence fees. That means that it is difficult for the Government to agree to tighten things up, because some of those people might want their money back.

There is a problem. I understand the broader national policy context. However, it cannot be right that if I wanted to erect a 15 m high conservatory I would have to apply for planning permission—I would, of course, be refused—but if I wanted to erect a 15 m high mobile phone mast, I would not need planning permission and could not be refused.

The difference is that although a 15 m high conservatory may be aesthetically displeasing, it does not transmit radio waves. Does my hon. Friend agree that as long as the science is still equivocal, local people have the right to expect a greater say in these matters? He may be interested in the fact that Alan Blood, one of my constituents, has written a play about the issue of radio transmission masts, which may not always be welcome in the local community.

My hon. Friend is reflecting a fear that many of our constituents have. I do not want to base the whole of my argument on health considerations. Let us be clear: we will get more radiation from our mobile phones than from any mast, and 60 million of us have mobile phones—so we are in a bit of trouble.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the radiation from a mobile phone is much greater than that from a mast. On occasions, the lack of a mast can mean that there is an even greater signal in the earpiece as the phone searches for a mast to which to connect. Therefore, counter-intuitively, sometimes it would be better for there to be more masts or for masts to be closer to schools than to have increased signals as a result of that searching. Our consideration of constituents’ fears has to be evidence-based.

That brings me neatly on to the argument put forward by Sir William Stewart in his report. He mentioned the precautionary principle and recommended that children under the age of six should not have access to mobile phones for the precise reason that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why my proposals in new clauses 3 and 4 refer to the need to validate what radiation is coming from masts that are close to schools, health facilities and nurseries.

There are straightforward solutions, and—this point has also been made in previous debates—this is not an attempt to shut down the mobile phone industry. The industry has 60 million users and is a very important part of our national infrastructure. However, petrol stations and supermarkets are also such a part, and they go through a planning process; it is flawed in some ways, but they nevertheless go through it. If one looks north of Hadrian’s wall, one sees that the Scots have amended their planning rules so that mobile phone masts are subject to those controls. As far as I am aware, the mobile phone industry and mobile phone users in Scotland have not lost out as a result.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the solution may be to encourage mobile phone companies to go on to roaming so that there could be more mast sharing? Hopefully, that would reduce the need for so many masts.

I am beginning to wonder whether I circulated my speech notes before the debate, because the hon. Gentleman has certainly got close to what I was going to say. One of the things that the Minister may say, if she has any time, is that mobile phone companies are very responsible and that they have 10 commitments. They are 10 commitments, but they are certainly not 10 commandments; even if they were, commandments tend to be broken quite often. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) introduced a Bill, as a Labour Member, to try to make those commitments into commandments, but he did not succeed. The phone companies have an exceptionally strong record on arrogance and oppression.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if mobile phone masts were subject to the planning regime, the companies would be far more likely to co-operate and we would be likely to have fewer masts—and in sensible locations, without competition for separate locations?

I would like to think so; it is certainly true that in every realm of life, including what goes on in this building, if people have the power to do something, they go and do it—just because. That is what the phone companies sometimes do in local communities.

My case is not an attack on individual companies or on the industry; it is a straightforward case. The mobile phone industry no longer needs the start-up protection that it was given in 1984. It has 60 million customers, for goodness’ sake, and 40,000 transmission stations—base stations, as they are called. We now need to reflect on the fact that our local communities need the assurance that local planning authorities and their local representatives have an effective say in how the mobile phone industry impacts on the local environment. It is surely a matter of public policy that at least a nod should be given towards the recommendations of Sir William Stewart’s inquiry and the precautionary principle. The new clauses would require additional statutory assurances that where masts are close to sensitive locations they must have that validation. It would not be a ban or a moratorium but a formal process of validation of radiation levels in those places, somewhat similar to an MOT test for a car. At present, no car can go on the road unless it has type approval, but we do not see that as good enough for individual cars, which need to have MOTs.

I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware of last weekend’s reports in The Sunday Times of a link between the huge number of suicides in the Bridgend area and telephone masts—reports that proved to be rather interesting and frightening reading?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, but I would prefer not to get engaged in the point that he makes.

New clauses 3 and 4 would allow the House to bring the mobile phone industry back under public scrutiny. There can hardly be a Member in the House for whom this has not been a significant concern in their constituencies since they were elected, however long ago that was. Support for the new clauses would be a signal that we are serious about protecting and representing our local communities. They have all-party support—I was delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said on behalf of the Conservatives—and I hope that there will be an opportunity to test the view of the House later.

I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. Time is marching on quickly, so I just want to make one or two brief points on this large group of amendments with which the Minister dealt in great detail, which was extremely helpful to the House.

I support the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who made a cogent case, although I am not sure that he quite understood my comments. I think that it is now technologically possible, via roaming, which happens much more extensively on the continent than it does here, for more mobile phone companies to share masts, which would mean that fewer would be required. However, that does not obviate his point that we still need to bring them within the planning system and they need to have a health check before they are erected.

I support the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), because I have argued strongly that planning powers should not be given to the regional assemblies. To give those powers to the regional development agencies is an even worse proposal, because they are less democratic than the regional assemblies. The regional assemblies have indirectly elected members, but regional development agencies have no democratic accountability whatsoever. Much of my constituency, which is in the south-west region, is nearer to the Scottish border than it is to Penzance, yet the regional development agency insists on having its offices in Exeter, which is one of the furthest points away from it. The idea that it should control housing numbers in my constituency is completely unacceptable to my constituents.

As I said to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), I have a sense of déjà vu about several of the issues that have been discussed today. He will recall that repeat planning applications came up in our previous debates in 2004, and I welcome those parts of the Bill, and the amendments, that deal with repeat and concurrent planning applications. I have taken part in previous debates on permitted development rights, and I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Streatham, who was right to say that the development in his constituency was carried out under paragraph 17, not paragraph 11, of the general development procedure order, where article 4 would have applied. The Secretary of State talked about using article 4 directives, but as she will know, as she has become such an expert in planning, local authorities are wary of issuing such directives because they have to pay compensation if they do so and permission is passed. They are wary of using that mechanism, and the right hon. Member for Streatham will remember that we had discussions about the difficulties of using such directives in the case of Gypsies.

I would like to talk briefly about local member review bodies, because there is a serious question about their membership. If they are to work properly—and they could be a good idea—they must seen to be properly objective by our constituents. If people’s rights to appeal are taken away in lieu of those local member review bodies, the composition of those bodies should reflect a fair membership that is truly objective, professional and able to act instead of the Planning Inspectorate.

Finally, I would like to say something about permitted development rights and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). It is absolutely right that the Minister has agreed to meet members of the National Farmers Union—I declare an interest as a farmer and a chartered surveyor. If farmers’ permitted development rights for erecting smaller agricultural buildings are taken away, that will be a cause of concern. Larger agricultural buildings and buildings near public rights of way have to have planning permission under the existing regime so it is only rights relating to small buildings in very rural locations that will be affected by the provisions. I am grateful to the Minister’s agreement to meet my right hon. Friend, and I hope that productive discussions will stem from that.

There are a host of other issues that I could discuss, but time is moving on. I regret that we do not have more time to discuss them, and I regret the fact that we will not get to the clauses on the community infrastructure levy. That is a huge discredit to the Government, because we ought to be discussing that very important part of the Bill today.

Question put and agreed to.

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

New Clause 31

Power to make provision in relation to Wales

‘(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order make provision—

(a) which has an effect in relation to Wales that corresponds to the effect an England-only provision has in relation to England;

(b) conferring power on the Welsh Ministers to do anything in relation to Wales that corresponds to anything the Secretary of State has power to do by virtue of an England-only provision.

(2) The England-only provisions are—

section 152 (correction of errors in decisions);

section 155 (determination of planning applications by officers);

section 156 (determination of applications for certificates of lawful use or development by officers);

section 157 (validity of decisions made on reviews);

section 158 (determination of listed building applications by officers);

section 161 (removal of right to compensation where notice given of withdrawal of planning permission);

section 162 (power to make non-material changes to planning permission);

section 166(1) and Schedule 4 (use of land: power to override easements and other rights);

section 167 (applications and appeals by statutory undertakers);

section 168 and Schedule 5 (determination of procedure for certain proceedings);

paragraphs 2(3) and (4) and 3(3) of Schedule [Power to decline to determine applications: amendments].

(3) Before an England-only provision is brought into force—

(a) the reference in subsection (1)(a) to the effect an England-only provision has is to be read as a reference to the effect the provision would have, if it were in force;

(b) the reference in subsection (1)(b) to anything the Secretary of State has power to do by virtue of an England-only provision is to be read as a reference to anything the Secretary of State would have power to do by virtue of the provision, if it were in force.

(4) The Welsh Ministers may by order make provision for the purpose of reversing the effect of any provision made in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1).

(5) The Secretary of State may make an order in consequence of an order under subsection (1) for the purpose of ensuring that an England-only provision continues to have (or will when brought into force have) the effect in relation to England that it would have had if the order under subsection (1) had not been made.

(6) An order under this section may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify a provision of—

(a) an Act, or

(b) an instrument made under an Act.

(7) The powers of the Welsh Ministers to make orders under this section are exercisable by statutory instrument.

(8) Those powers include—

(a) power to make different provision for different purposes (including different areas);

(b) power to make incidental, consequential, supplementary, transitional or transitory provision or savings.

(9) No order may be made by the Welsh Ministers under this section unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.’.—[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 32—Wales: transitional provision in relation to blighted land.

Government amendment No. 199.

Amendment No. 298, in page 106 in clause 173, leave out lines 16 to 31.

Amendment No. 299, in page 106 leave out lines 34 to 38.

Government amendments Nos. 247, 248, 260, 265 and 267.

Let me deal with a group of clauses that were discussed in Committee about Welsh powers, Welsh blight, the Welsh commissioners and their representation and Opposition amendments, which would, in our view, restrict National Assembly for Wales legislative competence.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a programme motion earlier and we thought that we would run out of time. Is it in order for us to discuss all the important matters in the Bill that relate to the entire nation of Wales in less than two minutes?

I am bound by the order to which the House agreed earlier today.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) would have been a welcome member of the Committee. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) served on it and made a good contribution to its deliberations. We have taken on board some of his comments and I know that he agrees that some Opposition amendments, namely Nos. 298 and 299, are a bad idea. We want consistency, with some of the town and country planning measures for England replicated for Wales. The amendments would provide for that.

Amendments Nos. 199, 247, 248 and 260 would enable Welsh Ministers to apply by order several miscellaneous reforms to the land use planning system, which are currently included in the Bill on an England-only basis. The Welsh Assembly Government believe that there could be merit in introducing the reforms in Wales. It is therefore appropriate for the Bill to recognise that and allow an opportunity for the reforms to be made in Wales. An order-making power is the most effective way in which to achieve that.

It being Seven o’clock, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [2 June and 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 32

Wales: transitional provision in relation to blighted land

‘(1) During the transitional period the repeal by PCPA 2004 of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990 in relation to Wales is subject to subsection (2).

(2) That repeal does not affect anything which is required or permitted to be done for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of TCPA 1990 (interests affected by planning proposals: blight) in relation to land falling within any of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990.

(3) The transitional period is the period during which—

(a) in the case of land falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990, a structure plan continues to be or to be comprised in the development plan for an area in Wales by virtue of Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and Part 1A of Schedule 2 to TCPA 1990;

(b) in the case of land falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990, a local plan continues to be or to be comprised in the development plan for an area in Wales by virtue of Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and Part 1A of Schedule 2 to TCPA 1990;

(c) in the case of land falling within paragraphs 3 or 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990, a unitary development plan continues to form part of the development plan for an area in Wales by virtue of article 3(1) and (2) of the PCPA No.6 Order 2005.

(4) In this section “PCPA No.6 Order 2005” means the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Commencement No.6, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/2847).

(5) This section is deemed to have come into force on the same day as the repeal of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 13 to TCPA 1990 came into force in relation to Wales (see Article 2(e) and (g) of the PCPA No.6 Order 2005).’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

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

New Clause 3

Amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 71A insert—

“71B Telecommunications masts: precautionary principle statement

(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a precautionary principle statement (“the statement”).

(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeal, shall—

(a) make copies of the statement available for inspection, and

(b) indicate how representations can be made in respect of the statement,

in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.

(3) A local planning authority in considering an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, or the Secretary of State on an appeal against a determination or non-determination, shall not make a decision until it, or he, has first taken into account the information contained within the statement and any representations received in respect of that information.

(4) Where the statement indicates that there is a threat of damage to health or the environment, it shall not be a ground for granting planning permission that there is a lack of full scientific certainty about the extent of the threat of damage to health or the environment.

71C Telecommunications masts: beam of greatest intensity certificate

(1) Every application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus shall be accompanied by a certificate (“the certificate”) which sets out—

(a) the area and maximum range of the beam of greatest intensity,

(b) the minimum and maximum distances at ground level of the beam of greatest intensity,

(c) an explanation of the way in which the intensity of radiation falls off with distance from an antennae and of the level of the intensity of radiofrequency radiation,

(d) an indication of where the beam of greatest intensity falls and the nearest and farthest distance from the antenna to these points.

(2) A local planning authority on receipt of an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts and associated apparatus, and on the receipt of a notice of appeals shall—

(a) make copies of the certificate available for inspection, and

(b) indicate how representations can be made,

in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations.

(3) Where a beam of greatest intensity falls on any part of any premises or land occupied by or consisting of an educational or medical facility, or of residential property, planning permission shall not be granted before first taking into account the information contained within the certificate, and any representations received in respect of that information.

(4) For the purposes of section 71B and this section—

 “beam of greatest intensity” means where the greatest exposure to the  radiofrequency radiation signal occurs;

  “educational facility” means any premises used for the education of  children and young adults, whether such education is full or part time,  and includes a nursery school;

  “electronic communications code” means the code set out in Schedule 2  to the Telecommunications Act 1984;

  “exempted apparatus” means—

(a) a public call box, or

(b) an antenna which cannot be used for receiving a signal transmitted from a telecommunications mast, and

(c) radio equipment which cannot be used in connection with a telecommunications mast;

  “medical facility” means any premises used for medical treatment or  care;

  “precautionary principle statement” means a statement accompanying  an application for planning permission for telecommunications masts  and associated apparatus which describes the effect upon the  environment or human health which might arise from the installation  or use of the telecommunications masts and associated apparatus;

  “telecommunications masts and associated apparatus” has the same  meaning as the term “electronic communications apparatus” in the  electronic communications code, except that the definition of that term  does not include exempted apparatus.”.’.—[Andrew Stunell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As we begin Third Reading, we have come to a wide agreement that this is an important Bill that makes important far-reaching reforms to our planning system. The challenges facing the country demand difficult decisions in order to make such improvements. We must replace a third of our electricity generation capacity in the next 20 years. We must increase the power we generate from renewable resources and we aim to see that at a level of 20 per cent. by 2020. We must secure water supplies for a growing population with an increasingly changing climate, and we must improve the major transport systems to support jobs and economic growth in this country for the future.

We know that to get major investment for such major developments we need clearer national policies on big energy, water and transport developments. We know that we need a better way to make decisions on big project applications and that we need more opportunities for local people to have a say and an influence, particularly those from the local council areas and communities that are most affected by big project applications. That is precisely what the Bill provides us with.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way—not to the hon. Gentleman at this point.

The House, and members of the Public Bill Committee in particular, have given the Bill strong scrutiny. We have had four Committee evidence sessions, 14 Committee scrutiny sessions and two days on Report. At every stage, the Government have been ready to listen carefully to the arguments and concerns raised by Members from all parties and from groups with an interest in the Bill.

When there has been a good case for changes that can also strengthen the Bill, we have been ready to make such changes. We have done that in relation to the accountability of the IPC to the House through Select Committees, a stronger duty for Ministers to take the environment into account, and the role of local councils in reporting to the IPC on the consultation conducted by promoters before an application and on the impact of an application in their area. We have made such changes on the right to be heard at inquiries conducted by the IPC and on a range of other matters, from enforcement loopholes to excluding tramways and other guided transport systems from the Bill.

I pay tribute to the Chairs of the four main departmental Select Committees who have worked with me and with the Leader of the House. As a result of what the Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has described as “extremely constructive dialogue”, we have developed and legislated for a special system to allow Parliament to scrutinise the new national policy statements, which was agreed by the House during our first day on Report.

There is also wide agreement that the planning system requires a radical overhaul. As we pass the Bill to the other place, we have reached the point where there is wide, if not universal, acceptance of our plans to reform the existing eight separate consent regimes—often arcane and antiquated—into one. Also accepted are our new national policy statements that will cover the big questions on the balance between environmental, economic and social objectives. Those policy statements will also consider the national need for development, including where nuclear power stations and airport extensions should be sited. Our plans for a new independent commission, drawn from a wide range of relevant expertise and tasked with assessing and deciding on applications, have also been accepted.

If someone wanted to begin a planning application for a new power station today, how long would it take to get an answer under the new system?

An application today for a new power station would be handled under the existing regime. The new system means that the commission will handle such matters only when the new national policy statements are in place, and under their terms.

The Government have also gained approval for new legal obligations for project developers to consult locally before submitting an application. If they do not do so, the commission will not even look at an application. We have also gained approval for our plans for a new inquiry process that guarantees the right to be heard, in writing and in person, and which makes cross-examination available. The commission will lead the questions, so that lawyers do not dominate and cause local voices to be shut out.

Finally, we have gained approval for our plans to improve the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and for a new power allowing councils to introduce a community infrastructure levy for their areas.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me, and I shall be brief. He mentioned the public’s right to be heard, but many people are worried about how areas subject to flooding and standing water are handled. Is he confident that the new planning process will give local residents the opportunity to have their opinions heard before the Environment Agency turns an area into a standing water flood plain?

I rather regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman now, as he has a habit of coming in halfway through a debate and going off half-cocked. The Bill does not cover those matters, nor does it touch that part of the planning system.

Some of the proposals in the Bill involve tough decisions, but they will help meet this country’s vital long-term needs for more homes, nuclear power and airport extensions. Faced with those difficult planning decisions, the Tories have ducked and dived—worse, though, they have at times played the Bill for short-term political gain. In Committee they voted against the IPC, preferring that the planning inspectorate should do the job of hearing applications. At the start of the Report stage today, a Tory amendment accepted the IPC, but only to make recommendations. By the end of Report stage, they voted to allow the IPC to make decisions, but only if they were confirmed by the Secretary of State after six months.

Not only do the Opposition duck the difficult questions, their policy moves with the political wind. There is no consistency or credibility, so no wonder they are still not taken seriously by serious opinion. Today’s edition of the Financial Times devoted a leading article to the Planning Bill. It said that the Tories

“are facing in two directions at once. Despite their claims to want more housing and development, they are prepared to sink the reforms necessary to deliver a better system...Leader David Cameron’s half-pregnant pose on planning will not do.”

Another heavyweight view was expressed in a letter last week to the Leader of the Opposition. It stated:

““Improving the way the UK gives planning approval for this infrastructure is now absolutely crucial to delivery of a secure, greener, energy economy for the UK…Without a much smoother planning process we believe many of the aspirations you set out so clear in your Blue/Green Charter will not be achieved”.

That letter was written by Steve Holliday, the chief executive of the National Grid, on behalf of all this country’s major energy companies.

In other words, we have a Conservative party with a leader who cannot take tough decisions, and who cannot say where he stands on the big issues, because he is too concerned with his immediate political position. I say to my hon. Friends that that is good for Labour, good for the Government and good for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister sees what Britain needs for the long term and he is determined to see the changes through the short-term difficulties, because they are essential for the country. I am pleased to say that the House has given the Bill strong backing in Divisions on all the main issues, which is a sound basis on which to send it to the other place. I look forward to seeing their Lordships lend their support to the Bill’s main provisions, as this elected House has.

I call Mr. Clive Betts.

I want to make three or four—

I do apologise. I call Jacqui Lait.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that I had become wholly invisible. That is a more relaxed note for me to start on than if I had started by attacking the Minister for his rather unpleasant summing up. Although we had our differences, we behaved very reasonably in Committee and exchanged a lot of views, although we may not have agreed. We had a very pleasant atmosphere, and it is a great shame that there is this rather bitter and twisted approach on Third Reading.

It is lovely to see the Minister back, by the way. He worked so hard, and then he was pushed aside for the two really difficult groups of amendments that we debated this afternoon. I think he needs to keep his women under control.

We need to agree where we agree, and make it absolutely clear where we disagree and why. Nobody disagrees that we need to speed up infrastructure planning. In fact, one of the most shocking things that happened in the past 10 years was that when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he instantly ducked decisions on nuclear power, and did so for 10 years. Now, suddenly, the Government are wedded to nuclear power. For 10 years they have deliberately not made decisions, and we are now facing the hangover from that.

The deputy director of the CBI asked earlier this week what we would do when the lights went out in 2015. Even with the changes in the Bill, there is no way in which we will get new nuclear power stations up and running by then. Let us work together to try to ensure that we speed up infrastructure planning applications.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is most likely that the first nuclear power station will be in my constituency? I welcome that, so there is nothing wrong with my saying on the one hand that I want the Government to make decisions instead of hanging about for 10 years before doing so, but on the other hand that they are much more likely to get their plans through if my constituents have a clear ability to talk about what they care about locally, without a quango interposing. That is the issue that we have had to consider.

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, and after I have clarified what we and the Government agree on, I shall address the issues on which we fundamentally disagree.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I know that others wish to contribute, but I shall give way if my right hon. Friend will be brief.

Will my hon. Friend answer the question that the Minister obviously could not? If somebody wanted to build a power station now, would it be quicker for them to submit an application today, under the current system, or to wait for all the gobbledegook of the new system and run with that?

I believe that E.ON has submitted a planning application for a coal-fired power station, and I suggest that it needs to get on with it. Under the new system, it would be mired in the courts under judicial review into infinity.

It will be really helpful if I can get back to what we agree about. We agree that the system needs to be sped up. We agree on the single consent regime. We agree in principle on the national policy statements and on the community infrastructure levy, which we did not reach this afternoon, largely because the changes to the programme motion allowed the Government to ensure that we would not debate it.

In Committee, we put forward ideas to make the Bill work better. We wanted to keep the democratic principles. We wanted a vote in Parliament on a national policy statement because that would make it democratically owned. We do not want Ministers to make decisions on the IPC, and we tabled a variety of amendments to determine whether the Government had made any moves towards understanding that the IPC will be totally undemocratic and unaccountable.

The IPC will be abolished. We have agreed to take on the review after two years that the Secretary of State offered the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). In two years we will be in government, and we will review the IPC out of existence. For the second time today, I put on record the fact that anyone who takes up a contract to be a commissioner will have a very short contract.

We want to ensure that applications are kept out of the courts, but this system will drive them into the courts, to judicial review. We want local authorities to have effective powers over the community infrastructure levy. We want them to have effective powers over small planning applications and local housing and planning developments. We do not want regional development agencies to take over those roles.

The Bill does not allow for a vote on national policy statements in Parliament. It hands over the power and responsibility of Ministers. The British people understand that Ministers are there to take decisions, not to hand that power to the unelected. Handing over the powers to the IPC is an abrogation of their democratic responsibility.

We do not want planning authority to be transferred from regional assemblies, which we hate anyway, to RDAs, which are inappropriate bodies to handle it. We do not want infrastructure money to be taken away from the people in a community who suffer from developments and handed to somewhere totally remote from where they live.

It was a scandal that we did not consider the community infrastructure levy on Report. Key points of principle needed to be debated—although, of course, we could not have debated the detail because we still do not know it. I doubt that even the House of Lords will have the detail. It looks as though the community infrastructure levy is unravelling. The Government are setting it up to fail, and they are getting away with it because they are not prepared to repeal the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007. Until that Act is repealed, it provides a fall-back position for the Government.

If the 2007 Act is still on the statute book, no one will accept that the community infrastructure levy can be made to work under the various proposals that might come forward. It is a paving Act, but the mere fact that it is on the statute book indicates that the Government are still prepared to use it. I challenge the Government to repeal the Act. When they do, we might get a workable community infrastructure levy.

We have not been able to debate the serious transfer of power to the Welsh Assembly and we have not been able to discuss issues relating to Scotland. The Bill is one of the most undemocratic, unaccountable—

Will my hon. Friend give way?