Planning Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008.

Further written evidence reported to the House

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Good morning. We begin this morning by hearing evidence from representatives of Friends of the Earth. Mr. Ellis, we would like to welcome you to this meeting and thank you for coming to give evidence to us. Would you care to introduce your colleagues, please?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Thank you. Is there any short statement that you would like to make before answering questions?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Thank you.

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I want to ask you about your approach to making the process constructive, both in relation to the role of the commission and the processes. Friends of the Earth on some occasions has demonstrated a capacity for constructive engagement with big issues. On other occasions, it has been totally obstructive, perhaps through frustration with process, which is why it is so important to look at that. Would you agree that speed and quality of scrutiny are not necessarily the same, or, to put it another way, that long drawn-out scrutiny is not necessarily better or more objective or more capable of engaging the public or interested parties in scrutiny? How would you set about getting that balance between, on the one hand, speed and opportunity for engagement in a time frame that everybody can understand and, on the other hand, improving the quality of scrutiny and evidence-based discussion of particular issues?

Alun Michael (Labour, Cardiff South and Penarth)

If I may say so, I experienced the eight years of objections to the Cardiff Bay barrage, which I think most people would agree was time that was taken and expense that was involved to no good end. My point is that if there is frustration, you end up with everybody simply using every mechanism they can to delay the process. That is not necessarily good for objectors or for the process. What ways would you see of avoiding the frustration of delay at the same time as improving the quality of the process?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

In your evidence, you have indicated almost that there is a risk of civil unrest if the Bill becomes an Act, because of the lack of public consultation. What do you think will be required as a minimum to stop a new generation of Swampies emerging?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

For the IPC to be democratically accountable, that means that ultimately every single decision that the IPC takes has to be taken by a Minister?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Thank you very much for coming in this morning on what was, potentially, going to be a very busy day for you. You talk with approval about the national policy statements. Could you outline for us the method of consultation that you think should be behind the development of these statements?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Do you then envisage a two-layer consultation—a public consultation and then scrutiny within the parliamentary system—and do you include in that the historic right to be heard, which includes cross-examination?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am sorry: do you agree with the right to be heard, in terms of a cross-examination that is adversarial as opposed to—what is the other word?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Inquisitorial.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Inquisitorial. Thank you.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Just a quick one, if I may: would you then be looking to invoke article 6 of the Human Rights Act?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I was just thinking about that last point. Under what circumstances, if any, do you think that a national policy statement should be location-specific?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

From your point of view, it is better that they are not?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The other part that I wanted to pursue is that although I probably agree with you about the importance of cross-examination, obviously there is a need to limit repetition and irrelevance. Do you have any problem with the idea that perhaps inspectors should be given more power, in the same way that judges have in some areas in the High Court, to identify issues at preliminary hearings, and then be pretty rigorous about those who stray off the point?

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

Can you see anything in the Bill that would make it easier to develop renewable energy?

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

Taking the Bill as it is, with unified planning consent, are you saying that that would help or hinder renewable energy development?

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

Are you against the IPC in principle? I know that you made several detailed points about it in your submission. Are you against the whole concept?

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

So you would not have a different view if different individuals were proposed for the commission, or if there were a different procedure for appointing them. Is that the principle?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

What if the Government were to say to you, “Give us three nominations for this commission”—although I know that they will not change their mind; we know that they never change their mind? I am rather supportive of your view on the commission, but they will not abandon it.

However, if the Government said, “Okay, you are very concerned about this, and you think that those people were not very well brought up and do not know how to eat their peas or talk to people. Give us the names of three people you would nominate who would reassure you that your concerns about public involvement and engagement, and sustainability, would be met. You would feel much happier if which three people were on the commission?” You do not have to clear their names. Just give me three off the top of your head who would make you think, “Gosh, somebody has been listening”—not including Zac Goldsmith.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

But the Government talk about people who have a range of expertise. One often finds in life people who may not start with a particular expertise but who just happen to have a lot of experience of life and who make good, solid, sensible judgments about things. They act as important elements in an organisation. The nominations obviously would include some people with technical background, but would you feel reassured if the bulk were people who were just sensible citizens who could take a proper balanced view, accept a brief and understand the argument?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Now, coming to this wonderful business of “locationally specific”—I must remember to tell my wife when she picks me up tonight to be locationally specific about the pick-up point. If we have a national planning statement on an airport runway, that is locationally specific by definition, is it not? Could you have a national planning statement on a runway that did not mention either Heathrow, Stansted, or possibly both, and nowhere else? That is the planning permission to all intents and purposes, is it not?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

If we are coming to nuclear energy, I do not know whether this afternoon’s statement will be designated a national policy statement in due course, but it is inconceivable that anybody would build a power station where there is not already a nuclear power station, is it not? Those are site-specific, to all intents and purposes. Is not there an argument for the Minister just saying, “This is an issue of national policy.” All this stuff about the commission having a great range of discretion is absolute hooey! Why do not Ministers get on with it, take responsibility and take the flak?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

You are very good—

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Order. Two hon. Members want to get in and we have three minutes left.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Is there legitimate concern that there will be too many national policy statements and that those will not be integrated enough? I am mindful particularly of previous oral evidence that stated that there will be one for each energy sector and of separate evidence about the interaction of ports development and neighbouring road and rail development. It does not strike me as being particularly integrated at the moment.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

What is the maximum number of statements that is possible, without having an overarching framework?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

You are most critical in your memorandum about the powers conferred on the IPC to amend, repeal or revoke local Acts and to apply, modify or exclude provisions in primary legislation. One can well see that such powers are highly desirable if you are going for a super-streamlined consent system. Are you saying that you are opposed to such powers as a matter of principle or that, if such powers are to be conferred on the IPC, they should be subject to some form of democratic scrutiny and accountability?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

If the IPC were to exercise such functions and to have such powers, you would expect them to be subject to the endorsement of the appropriate institution.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Time has now beaten us, I am afraid, but I thank you, Mr. Ellis, and your colleagues, for coming to give evidence to us this morning. It has been most helpful and we are very grateful. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Southgate. We are very grateful for you coming to give evidence to us on behalf of the Environment Agency. Perhaps you would introduce your colleague.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Would you like to make a brief opening statement, or go straight to questions?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

You mentioned the need for sustainable development to be reflected adequately in the Bill and that, to some extent, it is already reflected. In what way do you think the Bill could be improved in that regard?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I will essentially repeat the same question, but with regard to climate change. Do you think that the Bill needs more explicit reference to the need to be mindful of climate change issues at each step?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Are you satisfied, in your role as a statutory consultee on this issue, that you will have a pivotal role in advising and/or giving your views and helping to amend? It seems to me that, in this regard, your body must be a very important consultee. Does the Bill satisfy you that you will be heard sufficiently?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Just to follow on from the discussion on sustainability, you said that the national policy statements in the Bill are currently subject to an appraisal of sustainability. You would like them to be subject to a strategic environmental assessment. Can you explain briefly what that means, quantitatively or qualitatively, in terms of the difference of emphasis that we place on the environment and sustainability?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Therefore, a simple amendment that moved those two words around so that “appraisal of sustainability” became “sustainability appraisal” would address your concerns about the Bill’s ability to deal effectively with sustainability issues.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Following up the point about statutory consultees, can you explain what extra you acquire as a result of being a statutory consultee that would enable you, for instance, to operate more effectively in addressing issues relating to the environment, climate change or flooding?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Do you know how many people you would need to address the national policy statements?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

You mentioned that you want to see the equivalent of the strategic environmental assessment and the habitats directive incorporated into the national policy statement. I just wonder if you have any views on the current status of the airport policy, the policy on nuclear power stations, which we understand might potentially come out today, and on the many current applications for wind farms.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

One of the issues that came out of yesterday’s evidence session is that statutory bodies having difficulty meeting the deadlines currently set down is one of the reasons for delays in the current inquiry system. There are tight deadlines in the Bill for the IPC to meet. Do you currently have difficulty, as the Environment Agency, meeting the statutory deadlines and would you expect to have any difficulty in meeting the deadlines in the Bill?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Gentlemen, you made some interesting comments about the possibility of the infrastructure levy being used for flood relief, and the Minister for floods is here. I do not see how that can work under this Bill. The Government have said that the infrastructure levy must go to meet infrastructure needs that arise from the development and must specifically not be used to catch up the backlog of expenditure. You work on the basis of schemes that have a priority score, so there is by definition a backlog of schemes. How do you think the community infrastructure levy could be used for flood relief work, unless you intend to build houses in the flood plain and therefore to levy in order to put walls around them?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Do you understand that it would not be well received in Ripon, for example—which has been flooded twice in seven years and where our score is, I think, 15.5 out of whatever, so we might get around to a flood relief scheme by about the next millennium—if a development were levied in Ripon but that was not used to protect Ripon? You said that you thought some of it might go regionally, so you are envisaging that, are you not?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Would it not be helpful if money from an infrastructure levy could be put alongside, let us say, a levy by the local council and the regional flood relief bodies, which levy by roughly the price of a loaf of bread per year per band D property—the biggest levy is around £3—in order to put together a package for flood relief? Would it not make this a great deal more helpful if moneys so raised by precepting bodies were not caught by council tax capping?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Are you expecting a separate national policy statement on flooding or simply integrating flooding through sustainability in each national policy statement?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Do you envisage the national policy statements including slightly more absolutes, so that at a certain level of flood risk it is totally unacceptable to build a power station or housing, for example, as opposed to simply going through the prioritisation?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Given that this is not part of a broader framework, are you concerned that it looks only at new developments? It does not consider the existing infrastructure in the sense that it is not looking at power stations, for example, that are currently on flood plains or housing that, historically, has been inappropriately built; there is no holistic view of infrastructure overall. We are looking piecemeal through national policy statements on future developments.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Order. A mobile phone, which has clearly not been switched off, has been ringing and another one that may be switched off is interfering with the loud speaker and the microphone system. Would hon. Members and others in the room please ensure that their mobile phones are switched off?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Thank you, Sir John. Gentlemen, I have heard your point about the desire to be a statutory consultee. Are there any other areas in which you think that consultation arrangements could be improved in the Bill?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Should we be looking to recognise somewhere in the Bill the obligations under the Aarhus convention on public participation in decision making in environmental matters?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Can I turn to a couple of issues that you have raised? In point 5.3 in your evidence, you refer to local member review bodies and some concerns that you have. I must say that the way that you phrase your concerns almost indicates that you feel that planning committees do not currently deal with issues on planning merits and simply take political issues into account. Also, you suggest that there is somehow a complete separation between planning merits and the concerns of the local electorate. However, is it not a little odd to believe that planning committees can, in the first instance, take decisions on very complicated and widespread development proposals but are not able, on a matter of appeal, to determine an issue about an extension to one house?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

So, to pick up some of your other wording, providing that there was that appropriate training to ensure that members understood that particular role, then, in general principle, you would not have a problem with what is being suggested?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

On the community infrastructure levy, in point 6.3 of your evidence you make the point about sub-regional and regional levels and the fact that we may need some funding from the levy to deal with infrastructure on that basis. When the Local Government Association representatives gave evidence yesterday, they were very much of the opinion that, if we are examining sub-regional issues, that should be a matter of local authorities coming together and reaching agreements. Are you happy with that as the appropriate way to approach those issues, or are you suggesting something more top down, in terms of a top-slicing of the CIL to make available funding for regional and sub-regional projects?

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

You acknowledged, in answer to the first question, that the Bill places a duty on the preparation of national policy statements to contribute to sustainable development. Given that sustainable development seeks to meet the needs of future generations in the context of future environments, how can they not implicitly take into account the impact of climate change, whether through adaptation or mitigation?

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

So it would be an enhancement, rather than an essential addition, to the Bill?

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Pursuing that point in terms of the work of the independent planning commission, you said that if those elements are in the national policy statement, you would like that duty—and, indeed, the climate change duty—to be on the IPC as well, because the IPC can take into account factors other than the national policy statement. How do you think such a duty would change the balance of their judgment, given that the NPS is the primary thing they are looking at anyway?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I have two unrelated questions. To come back to the levy, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked a question earlier about flood defences. He also referred to waste water treatment. How do you see that working in terms of the responsibility of the privatised utilities to deliver infrastructure projects?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

You also mention concerns about local member review bodies. How do you think that your concerns could be addressed?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

There are no more questions. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Southgate and Mr. Grayling, for coming before us this morning and answering all our questions so helpfully and fully. We are most grateful to you.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watts.]

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Could I make an announcement about mobile phones? Would you please turn any mobile phones off? It is not sufficient to leave them on silent because even on silent they interfere with the sound system in this room. Could everyone therefore ensure that their mobile phones are turned off during this sitting?

I am very pleased to welcome Philip Jones and his colleague David Smith from the Energy Networks Association. Do you have any opening statement that you would like to make briefly or shall we proceed directly to questions?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Indeed.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Welcome. I hope that you are pleased about the Government’s announcement earlier today on nuclear power. That will keep your industry going for some time to come. I do not know whether you have seen the statement, but it says that the Government will be inviting energy companies to put forward proposals for new power stations. This obviously affects your association. I wonder what you think about the policy statement process. We will keep the infrastructure planning commission out of it for the moment, but what, from your point of view, should be in the national policy statements?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

It has been in the papers all week.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I draw from that that you would like to know from the national policy statement the precise locations of the power stations so that you would know the points that you are connecting. In the jargon that we are using, you want a location-specific policy.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Have you considered that, if it was a location-specific statement, it is the equivalent of giving planning permission in principle without having consulted the local community, and hence there is the potential for conflict between the development and the local community?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I shall come on to the issue of infrastructure planning permission and accountability. In your submission you mentioned how, in relation to the IPC, the legitimate needs and concerns of local communities must be a central consideration and that they must be effectively consulted before an application is made. I just wonder whether you have any views about consultation at the stage when the IPC is actually considering an application, and particularly relating to cross-examination.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

It was not so much the pre-application stage that I was worried about. You have identified that it is important that the needs and concerns of local communities are a central consideration for the IPC, but if the Bill goes ahead, the IPC will not allow local communities to cross-examine, for instance. Do you still feel that the needs and concerns of local communities will be a central consideration for the IPC?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Have you, as an industry, assessed what was implied by one of our earlier witnesses: that if the IPC, for instance, goes ahead in the form set out in the Bill and does not allow cross-examination, there may be scope for significant civil unrest? Have you, as an industry, considered the implications of that, and what it might mean in terms of the time scales, for instance, for delivering some of your projects?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

The Local Government Association expressed support for the Bill on the condition that the number of nationally significant infrastructure projects was going to be in single figures. In the energy sector, how many do you believe there will be each year?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

The figure the Local Government Association was quoting meant overall, not just in the sector. That is well out of kilter with what they think is acceptable.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Can I put it to you that, in some cases, when 1 per cent. is not agreed, perhaps the whole thing is not appropriate? It is not simply a numbers game. Theoretically, if only 1 per cent. was objected to, it is quite possible that the project should not go ahead. When we look at these things on a more regional basis rather than looking at them from a local authority perspective, you are moving the decision-making process further away—literally—from those who know about the area and know about that 1 per cent.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

There are two issues that I would like to explore with you. The first is the national policy statements, which you say that you have generally supported. But you have put in your evidence to us at the top of page 2:

“However the interrelationship between them and the hierarchy of the existing suite of planning policies, statements and guidance must be addressed if they are to be effective.”

In saying that, are you basically concurring with what the Royal Town Planning Institute said to us yesterday? Their representatives said that the planning policy statements that exist and development plans, which already exist in many cases or are being developed, should also be relevant considerations for the commission when it comes to look at particular applications, and that we must sort out how consideration is given to what, in some cases, could be slightly contradictory guidance from the various statements involved.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Can I come on to the community infrastructure levy? With any proposal to collect money, some organisations will be against it. In this case, most organisations do not appear to be absolutely against it. One or two, such as yours, are saying, “Actually, it is quite a good idea, as long as it does not apply to us”.

There are two reasons that you advance as to why you should be exempt from the levy. The first is that you pay through section 106 arrangements anyway, but that is true of all developers and the interrelationship between section 106 and the levy is one of the issues that we have explored. Secondly, it is argued that there will not be any uplift in value on your sites generally and therefore, because the levy is about capturing some of that uplift in value for the public purse, you should be exempt from it.

However, is it not the case that there will be many types of development, not just energy developments, where there may not be an uplift in value but they will still have the levy applied to them? As an industry, why should you be exempt, given that we will have applications from the transport industry, the minerals industry and lots of other people who would want to advance a similar case?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I know that there is a problem because of the use of the word “valuing” in clause 163, which people latch on to. When we talked to the Local Government Association and to others yesterday, we heard that the intention for the levy is that it will be developed as part of the local development framework, which gives the development plan for the area. That will look at the infrastructure needs that go with the development and will lead on to how some of that infrastructure will be funded through a levy. There is then a process of allocating that levy across the various developments involved. Surely, there is no doubt that your sort of developments will create infrastructure costs in an area, so is it not reasonable that you should pay a contribution towards them?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Yes, but other developers do so as well.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Many developers would probably make the same arguments.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Do you have a standard pre-application consultation procedure?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

No, you as a company.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Living in a national park myself, I am aware of the delicacy of the position, whether going below or above ground. Looking at the Bill, have you had any thoughts on the pre-application consultation that is envisaged?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Earlier on, you said that you would be happy for decisions to be taken by the IPC because it would be manned by experts—that was your word. But is it not right that experts do not always get things right, otherwise there would not be such things as appeal courts? Looking at the Bill, are you confident that the IPC will strike the right balance between economic factors, environmental factors, local considerations and so on? If not, would either of you like to see any change in the Bill?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Gentlemen, you have just said, “At the moment, there is a control” for all the reasons that you have just set out to Mr. Llwyd, but is that not, in reality, precisely because there is an appeal? Exactly the point you and Mr. Jones are making, Mr. Smith, is that, because there is an appeal, that is a discipline. You get it right and you do not go to the commission unless you really must. There will not be any appeal from the IPC, will there? Who will judge the experts? Other experts?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

They say that it is not, Mr. Jones. That is the point. Apart from the Secretary of State calling something in, there is no appeal.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

You can JR them.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am just wondering whether you really think that that will give you major savings, or does the idea that the only route is judicial review make life more complicated, do you think?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Sure. I accept that it works at the moment.

The other thing that interests me is that Mr. Smith said that you must have someone from the industry on there. I understand why—there must be some expertise in how it works—but the IPC will also have to take decisions on the balance of benefit versus impact, which may involve local impact. Who will be there to represent the people who are on the receiving end of the local impact?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Mr. Jones, you do not have a problem with cross-examination—it is robust enough. Once it is done, if you have single consent, which is important, you can get on with the job. That is the key thing for you, is it not?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I can understand that side of it. I suppose that some lawyers would have to be involved, would they not, as the IPC will have to take decisions on domestic and international law? That is one of the grounds on which it can depart from a national policy statement. It makes one wonder how much it will have to expand to include an expert in everything.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That could be quite substantial.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I understand.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

In his most recent statement, the Secretary of State said that the Planning Bill will expedite planning applications more effectively and efficiently, particularly when it comes to new nuclear power stations, but he also mentioned what concerns some people who object to nuclear power—the cost. He said quite clearly:

“It will be for energy companies, not Government, to fund, develop and build new nuclear power stations, including meeting the full costs of decommissioning and each operator’s full share of waste management costs”.

Can you envisage any situation where the taxpayer, not consumers or businesses, will be asked to pay either directly or indirectly towards the building of any new nuclear power station?

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

But do you think that it would be helpful for the industry to clarify that it will not expect the Government or the taxpayer to pick up the bill for any new build nuclear power stations?

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

I think that that is a maybe.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

We have two minutes left. Does anybody have another question for these witnesses? No. In that case, thank you very much, gentlemen. We are grateful to you. You have been most helpful in assisting us in our deliberations on the Bill.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. Mr. Sinden, would you introduce your colleague, please?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Thank you. Do you wish to make a short opening statement?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Good afternoon, gentlemen. You talked latterly about the national policy statements. You were very brief on the subject, and I just wondered whether you had any views about what they should and should not encompass. As you may have heard, we have had evidence that the ENA would like to have all the substations included in them and others wanted all the ancillary roads included. Would you be looking for NPSs that went into that level of detail?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I am grateful to you for that and for bringing up the consultation process to which an NPS should be subject. Do you have any more extensive thoughts on how that should be accomplished, particularly given that, as I understand it, the Government want Parliament to give final approval to any statement?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

So do I gather from that that you would see the Select Committee as the driver of the consultation, or just one part of the process of the consultation?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Thank you.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Can I take you through one or two of the points you raised in your evidence? First, you said that you welcome the concept of the national policy statements, but you do not want them to be accorded greater weight than existing PPSs and PPGs. In particular, you drew attention to PPG2 on the green belt and PPS7 on nationally designated landscapes. In the end, must not one document take precedence over the others? Otherwise there will be conflict between a policy statement and PPSs—planning statements—or planning guidance? If there is that degree of conflict, the commission must know which is the priority statement.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

. One of the issues you raised—some of us have a degree of sympathy with you on it—is that the Secretary of State should be the responsible decision-maker in all cases. When some of us have put that argument before, we have been told that all the Secretary of State does is to act in a quasi-judicial role, not in a political role, therefore there is no need for a politician to get involved. Why are you so concerned, therefore, about the removal of the Secretary of State’s role in these matters?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Finally—I have one more issue, Sir John.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

One more question.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

In responding to the proposed changes in procedure that the commission will adopt, you have said that all we really need to do is to work through the Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2005, which you say have already worked on a trial basis at Stansted. You think that those should simply be adopted. When I put that to a witness on Tuesday, I think from the Planning Inspectorate, I was told that that was alright, except that those rules apply only to Town and Country Planning Act inquiries. There are a lot of Acts and inquiries that they do not apply to, which would not be reformed unless the Bill goes through.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am not sure whether they are part of the umbrella group, but the wildlife trusts have put forward the idea that there should be a national policy statement on the environment, so that whichever body considers the NPSs when deliberating on projects will have to also consider an NPS containing environmental considerations. Do you think that there is any merit in that and, if so, what would you want to see in that NPS?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Okay. So if the NPSs were trumping PPSs, what would you want to see, in brief, in the NPS covering the natural environment?

Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)

May I turn your attention to the community infrastructure levy? You said in your written statement that you are concerned about it and that it should

“derive benefit for localities less able to attract development”.

How do you see it working, and what proposals would you lay down for calculating the charge?

Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)

Just to follow through on that. Do you think that safeguards should be put into the policies developed for the levy, and do you have a view on whether some of the levy should be used for sub-regional or even regional spending on infrastructure projects?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I have to say that you are not too enamoured of the idea of the commission. There are several factors that slow down applications and lead to uncertainty, duplications and so on. Do you think that other measures in the Bill would be sufficient to overcome those problems without the need for an independent commission to make the final decision on applications?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I want come back to the IPC and the issue raised in paragraph 15 of your written submission. Perhaps you could flesh it out for me. As everyone seems to accept, there is merit in the single consent regime, in more work being done at the pre-application stage and in trying to limit the issues that arise when a decision-making process has to be gone through. We have had other witnesses say, “Well, the more we talk to the IPC and the more information that we are able to exchange between our experts, that will simplify things.” I wonder whether you have concerns—perhaps you will amplify them—about the real difficulty of having one party talking to the person who is, in effect, the judge and jury behind the back of any other party?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Are there other ways in which you could achieve a safer division in that regard?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I wonder whether clause 45, if it were operated in the way suggested, runs the risk of falling foul of the Aarhus convention.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

We have a few minutes left. Are there any further questions for these witnesses?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

In relation to the national policy statement, or potential national policy statement on aviation, assuming that the Bill went ahead in its present form, what do you think could be done to convert the White Paper into a national policy statement on aviation?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Presumably there is the potential for the energy statement today to become a national policy statement on energy as well. Do you have similar concerns about a conversion process there?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

You said all matters of controversy. What would you like to include in that phrase?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

There being no further questions, may I thank you very much for coming to give evidence to us this afternoon? It has been most helpful and instructive.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

This room is susceptible to mobile phones and they should, therefore, be turned off completely, rather than simply put on silent, as it seems to interfere with the sound system.

We now come to a very important part of the proceedings: evidence being given by the Minister and his colleagues. Mr. Healey, would you like to introduce your colleagues, please.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

After listening to two days of evidence, what amendments do you think you will need to make to the Bill to take account of concerns that have been expressed by witnesses?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Sorry to interrupt, but are you telling us that you have delivered domestic witnesses in front of the Committee, who are all house-trained?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

As you know, I am interested particularly in the infrastructure levy. Just on the process of that, could we have an assurance that the regulations that will give flesh to it will be available during the course of our discussions? Otherwise, we have to agree or object to something in principle, whereas the devil is very much in the detail. That is something that came out fairly clearly from the witnesses.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

You will certainly appreciate—

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

The problem caused by that is that I am broadly in favour of the infrastructure levy and accept that we need to fund the infrastructure that developments entail. Provided that local authorities are the prime movers of that levying, so that for local infrastructure it is predominantly local, I am relatively satisfied. I would get very upset if I felt that the regional development agencies were precepting—as it were—into that process because that would make me feel differently about it. I give you notice that I would like to come back to that issue.

If the Chairman will allow me to ask an additional question after this, I will accept your answer.

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

I will allow the Minister to respond to that point.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Finally, I listened to the Secretary of State make a statement on nuclear power in the Chamber today. He said in his final paragraph:

“I therefore invite energy companies today to bring forward plans to build and operate new nuclear power stations.”

That is a national policy statement, is it not?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Well, what would a national policy statement have that this does not, other than to say where?

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

So the national policy statement would be site-specific in this case. If it is site-specific, it is difficult to see what the planning commission’s job is, other than to sign it off, is it not?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

A few minutes ago, Minister, you said that you would bring forward amendments in good time. We are in Committee on Tuesday; where are the Welsh framework clauses?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am not saying that, Minister. It would be normal to see a Bill before we go into Committee, would it not?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

With respect, it is not; that is the point.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Yes, and I spoke with the Minister for the Environment yesterday, who was a little concerned about the length of time being taken to draft these clauses, but we will leave it there.

Would you agree, Minister, that consultation is a very important word in relation to this Bill?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

On the issue of consultation, will you confirm that the planning White Paper drew 32,000 individual responses, of which the vast majority were against the Bill?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Again regarding the White Paper, the initial assessment was that there would be about 10 major infrastructure projects each year. Subsequently, when the impact assessment came in, that rose to 46. Which is the more likely figure?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

For accuracy, the impact assessment for the Planning Bill found the annual cost of the IPC would be about £9.3 million, and setting up the IPC would cost £5 million. Are those figures accurate, as of today?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Finally, and briefly, I ask you to consider that, from my reading of the Bill, the IPC can rule in or rule out, in a hearing, the right to cross-examine and for parties to be heard. Is that correct?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

As an inexpensive hired hand, may I finally put to you what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said on 27 November? She said:

“The Bill will make it clear that any person who registers an interest can give oral evidence at relevant stages of the inquiry.”

In other words, that overrides the IPC’s right to discount oral evidence.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I have heard from pretty much everyone who has given evidence that there is a desire to see a more streamlined process. With regard to bigger projects, people accept that there are too many regimes under which schemes are decided. This is the same question that I asked a previous witness. If we have national policy statements and a unified development consent scheme, why do we have to have a new body to do that? Why cannot we look at existing means of deciding on those applications?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

I have heard their argument for national policy statements, but still do not feel that I have heard an argument for the IPC, other than it will take decisions so that Ministers will not have to. What is the real justification for the decision having to rest with an unelected body?

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

One further question, if I may, Sir John?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Just one.

Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

In terms of consultation and the pre-application stage, which is obviously a crucial stage, do you feel that people in the local community where a project is proposed are likely to feel that there has been enough independent engagement with them if the process is being led by the developer and paid for by the developer and the applicant?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

As the Minister, you have sat here and listened to two days of evidence. You will have heard many organisations, some of which you may regard as the usual suspects and others that are not, expressing concerns about both the national policy statements and the infrastructure planning commission, and how concerned it will be about sustainability issues. You heard the debate about whether appraisal of sustainability meant the same thing as sustainability appraisal. What reassurance can you give Members that the Bill and the different components that you propose will take on board sustainability and climate change? For instance, will you give us a guarantee that the national policy statements will be subject to a strategic environmental assessment?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

You have not been able to confirm that the national policy statements would be subject to a strategic environmental assessment.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Earlier, you referred quite specifically to the Climate Change Bill and have said that the national policy statements would need to take that into account. Do you mean, therefore, that any national policy statement on aviation will have to take into account the 60 per cent. reduction in emissions?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am not sure that that answers my question, but perhaps we can continue with one final question on the national policy statements. The Minister will have heard concerns expressed that the current White Paper on aviation might simply be adopted as a national policy statement. Minister, if this Bill were to become an Act, what would be required for the aviation White Paper to be converted into a national policy statement? Can it be done?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Your initial assessment is that you are comfortable that that could be done, taking on board the points that you have made about the need for consultation.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

May I be very boring and process-oriented? Having spent two days listening to the witnesses, one of the things that I cannot get my head around, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give me an indication of this, is roughly how many national policy statements he expects in total? What does he expect them to cover, because we have heard representatives from ports and harbours say that they want ancillary roads and railways, and we have heard the Energy Networks Association saying that they want all their substations to be included? What sort of scope should be included? What time scale does the Minister reckon it could take each policy statement to get through both the outside consultation process and whatever process he is planning to invite Parliament to undertake? How will he create consistency? I have a list of questions.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I can see us having policy statement indigestion. You did not answer with a ballpark figure of how many statements you were expecting: 20, 10, five?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

So given that Mr. Hutton, in his answer to me during his statement on the energy policy, said that he was working on a national policy statement on nuclear power and that you are saying that you expect an overarching national policy statement—I assume in draft—in 2009, who is preceding whom? If the Government are trying to get their first nuclear power station built by 2020, given the difficulties in so doing, I cannot get my head around whether we will have the nuclear statement separate and free-standing or as a subset of the one coming out in 2009, or subsequent to it. If it is going to be subsequent to it, why are the Government working on one that is specifically site locational, as Mr. Hutton told me, on nuclear power? To summarise, we are already seeing inconsistency in the Government’s approach.

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

I look forward to that process. Can we go back to the consultation process that you will be undertaking on these statements for the draft policies?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Precisely how you expect it to work. Will it be a document similar to a White Paper that you will put out for general consultation? Would the Government expect to do a roadshow round the country? Would they hold regional meetings? Would they expect Parliament to be driving this?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

Given the Government’s view that so much of our national infrastructure needs to be replaced in the very near future, when do you expect any of these national policy statements to be effective?

Jacqui Lait (Conservative, Beckenham)

No, you have not said that. As I understand it, you will have published a draft by that stage.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Minister, could I return to the first point made by Mr. Llwyd, with respect to the Welsh framework powers? When was the request first received from the Welsh Assembly Government for framework powers to be incorporated in the Bill?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am talking about the Welsh framework powers. Can you tell us when the request was first received from the Welsh Assembly Government for framework powers to be incorporated in the Bill?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Was it fairly recently?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

During the summer? That is about six months ago. What concerns me is that the first I heard about these proposals was at a briefing session organised by the Wales Office yesterday evening. I was handed, together with other Welsh colleagues, a memorandum with a letter that was apparently sent out on 17 December, although I do not recall receiving it. We are talking about the devolution of primary legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly, which, I think the Minister would agree, is a matter of some constitutional significance.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Forgive me, Minister, but that is not right. This is not the devolution of powers to Ministers. This is the devolution of legislative power to the Welsh Assembly. It is extraordinary that the Government are introducing these powers by a bolt-on provision to the Bill without allowing hon. Members to debate it on Second Reading on the Floor of the House. Does that not concern you?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Again, I must take issue with you. We are talking about law-making powers being devolved to the Welsh Assembly. You say that we are not likely to see the clauses for several days yet, until we get to part 9. Is that right?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

So the first opportunity the full House will have to debate those proposals will be on Report. Is that correct?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I wish to raise two more brief matters, with your permission, Sir John. Clause 15 provides that competence will be reserved in respect of power stations in excess of 50 MW generating capacity onshore and 100 MW offshore. Is that correct?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I see also from the White Paper that there has been some pressure from the Welsh Assembly Government for such powers to be devolved.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I take it that the Government are adamant that they will not devolve such powers. Is that correct?

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

Correct.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Finally, I revert to the point raised by Mr. Curry, who commented on the somewhat skeletal nature of the community infrastructure levy. Clause 164 provides that one of the possible charging authorities will be the Welsh Ministers. Is that right?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Can you say at this stage whether it is intended that all levy-charging powers in Wales will be exercised by the Welsh Ministers, or will it in some cases be the local planning authorities? Perhaps you have not arrived at that point yet.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Will any of the primary powers to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly enable Welsh Ministers to make amendments to these levy provisions?

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Will they be empowered to do so?

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

I would like to understand a little more about how the IPC will operate and be appointed. How will members be appointed to be commissioners, and is the intention to designate particular categories of experience that would be seen to be relevant or is it more open-ended? Would you explain a little more about how that will be done?

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

How are the reserve powers—the circumstances in which a decision could go to a Minister—to be drawn up and would there be ways of extending what those are?

Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool, Riverside)

Who will decide when any of those circumstances are relevant?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

The degree of support that was shown in evidence for the community infrastructure levy was quite interesting. It is supported not merely by those who will collect it, the local authorities, and those who are advising on it, the planning professionals, but by those who will have to pay it. On Tuesday, it was quite interesting to listen to the British Property Federation and the Home Builders Federation enthusiastically endorsing a levy that their members will have to pay.

Recognising the general support for it, I wonder if you had time to reflect on the issue that gave them collective cause for concern: the reference in clause 166 to the increase in value as a way in which the levy might be calculated. More particularly—this came out almost by default from the evidence that we heard today from the Energy Networks Association—clause 163 states that the primary purpose of the levy is

“to ensure that the costs incurred in providing infrastructure to support the development of an area can be funded...by owners of land the value of which increases.”

The argument there is, “Well, our land has not increased in value and we do not assume that it will from the development, and therefore we should be exempt from the levy.” There is a possibility that that basic requirement in clause 163 could lead to judicial review challenges by some people. Have you had a chance to reflect on those issues and whether there is a need for a revision of the wording of the Bill?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I do not think that it is absolutely clear in the Bill. We may want to return to that. I still think that there is a danger that clause 163, as currently drafted, could lead to individual owners of pieces of land that are developed arguing that they are exempt from it. We have to be a bit concerned about that. I also think that in terms of your urban extension, you might easily cover the difference between that area and another area by simply putting the word “locality” somewhere into clause 166. I think that that was the original proposal from the British Property Federation and the Home Builders Federation when they came forward with their proposals.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

We will have further discussion in due course about whether clause 166(4)(b) allows for that possibility. I think that that would be quite concerning, and that it is worrying some of the stakeholders in the process, but we will probably come back to that.

In terms of the role of Parliament, I accept the Minister’s line that in the end it is up to Parliament to determine its own procedures for how it will give consideration to national policy statements, but surely we ought to have laid down in the Bill that there will be a right for Parliament to scrutinise the draft statements and eventually to approve them?

I am told that, irrespective of which particular procedure Parliament eventually adopts to do that, its right to do so is not dissimilar from orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2006 or the Human Rights Act 1998. In both those Acts, it is laid down that Ministers must propose a draft order for Committee scrutiny and then lay an order for approval. Are we not asking for something very similar for national policy statements: giving Parliament the right to scrutinise and then to approve?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

But ought there not to be something in the Bill that gives Parliament the right to scrutinise and eventually to approve? Ought we not just to have something laid down, not relating to the process of it but enshrining the rights in legislation?

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Does—

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

Order. Four hon. Members still have not asked their questions.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

When you spoke earlier, Mr. Healey, about national policy statements, you said that you were not sure how important the potential number was.

I tend to agree with you, if the difference is between 20, 22 or 25. However, if the difference is between 20, 70, 80, 90 or 100, would you concede that there was a sizeable difference, and that that makes the case more compelling for an overarching national policy framework bringing together the different elements?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Can I press you for a high point, because it might become ridiculous? I foresee a point in the future, perhaps three or four years down the line, where we have 150 national policy statements, and the Minister has not put on the record that any number in three figures would be pushing it.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

So, 12 or 13 national policy statements? I am reassured by that. Thank you, Minister.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

In terms of length—

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Yes—the length of national policy statements. You could simply have fewer and bigger national policy statements. I was reminded particularly of the ports authority, which talked about the interaction between the port infrastructure and the rail infrastructure. Do you see each national policy statement having linkages, meaning it will become big, or some type of overarching document that will say how they connect and interrelate with one another, because they may well be contradictory?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I thank the Minister for one point.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Turning to the IPC, you have indicated that there are likely to be around 45 nationally significant programmes going through the IPC each year. The Local Government Association said that it was comfortable with the legislation if that number was in single figures. How do you respond to the LGA and could you put a cap on it? I pick the figure of 100. If the nationally significant projects moved up to three figures, would that start to become a little ridiculous and would the IPC, with its current structure and costings, start to become not fit for purpose at that point?

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Would you be able to supply the Committee with some projected breakdown? Some criticism of the Bill says it is mainly focused around the energy sector. It would be useful to get a feel for this, because on looking at the definitions it is not clear how many projects will come through which sectors. Again, going back to ports, I am concerned that few ports might fulfil the criteria but an incredibly large number of electricity projects would do so.

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Perhaps one way of looking at it would be to look back 10 years and say how many would have qualified on that basis. The Department can look backwards—I appreciate that you cannot look into a crystal ball—and that would perhaps give us some perspective and indication based on hard facts.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I just want to come back to the IPC. Effectively, you are creating a body—the IPC—that is neither subject to the discipline of elections and the political process, nor are its members bound by the obligations of a judicial oath. None the less, it will have powers to amend, apply, modify or exclude provisions of primary legislation. That is quite an extraordinary constitutional innovation, is it not? What parliamentary scrutiny will there be over the exercise of those powers?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

What I am interested in is that clause 105(6)(b) talks about having the ability to use those powers on primary legislation and local Acts when it is “expedient”. Some of us would like a lot more information about what is meant by and what will be covered by “expedient”. The consent regime is one thing, but what else might be covered by expediency? That is what worries us.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

There is always the worry of mission creep in such matters. Perhaps there should be some obligation for there to be a specific report to Parliament every time such powers are used so that people do not to get too trigger-happy in the use of it. Could we look at that?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will they have any right of appeal other than by judicial review if a compulsory purchase order is used as a result of a decision of the IPC?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Like now.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Another point that interests me is what you said about consultation. We discussed that a lot, but will you help me with one issue? In what respect will the rights of people who would be rule 6 parties under the 2005 rules be enhanced or reduced under the new regime of national policy statements? How will their rights of consultation change?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

No. I mean somebody who is registered as a rule 6 party under the 2005 rules.

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It comes down to this. A lot has been made about the delay caused by the planning process, which we all want to do something about. Minister, you have seen evidence submitted by the various witnesses that suggests that, in fact, a good deal of the delay is not occasioned by the prolongation of hearings by third parties or their representatives, but either by inadequate preparation by the applicants to start with, which was the case at terminal 5, or by the lengthy time taken within your own Department—about eight and a half months or something like that is the average. You can cure both those problems without setting up a quango, can you not?

Bob Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Given the likely economic benefits that it is said will come from these projects, is it not rather odd to say that if it is too costly for some people to participate, you will abolish the right to cross-examination? Might it not be rather cheaper to give them some assistance with the costs of participation and thereby perhaps reduce the risk of costly appeals, both domestically and in Europe?

Jeff Ennis (Labour, Barnsley East and Mexborough)

My line of questioning now is probably to try to obtain a point of clarification, given the questions that Mr. Neill has just asked the Minister. I would like to clarify the way that the new IPC will report back into Parliament. What will the mechanism be to achieve that reporting?

Jeff Ennis (Labour, Barnsley East and Mexborough)

That will go to the Secretary of State?

Jeff Ennis (Labour, Barnsley East and Mexborough)

I am just wondering, given the national significance and importance of the establishment of the IPC, whether we ought to be thinking along the lines whereby Ofsted reports directly to the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, for example. Might it not be more appropriate for the IPC to report back to the appropriate Select Committee rather than to the Secretary of State?

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Minister, you will have heard during the evidence session that representatives from the CBI, National Grid and others in general terms welcomed the Bill, particularly the simplified planning applications that will help them grow their business. However, you will also have heard them express some concern about devolved planning applications that could slow the process. Some concerns were expressed about that, not just on cost but about the security of supply. Call me a cynic, but when organisations such as the CBI express concern, that usually means either disinvestment or job losses, which gives us cause for concern. Where planning applications are devolved, please do not give up on your northern comrades. Reassure us and the CBI, which asked for every level of Government in the UK to work together to ensure that the energy policy throughout the UK can be implemented.

Finally, Minister, during our deliberations on the Bill, if you or your officials can identify any concerns that may impact on the consumer or on businesses in the devolved parts of the UK, will you make those public so that we can bring pressure to bear on the appropriate people making the decisions, particularly on planning issues such as nuclear energy?

Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)

Let us go back to the community infrastructure levy. I have been asking about that for most of this week and have been pleased at the support for it, although when asking people how they would calculate it and for their suggestions they have been slightly more reticent in coming forward. However, having said that there has been a useful dialogue.

I recognise the difference between the planning gain supplement and the levy and the flexibility that that gives to local authorities and other charging authorities to be able to make decisions locally. Knowing the reticence and the delay that we have sometimes had with regard to approvals for house building and home creation and the delivery of that, will you take any steps to ensure that the levy is not used, through the guidance, powers and provisions that you make, to delay building where there are concerns about house numbers and house building figures?

John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)

We have eight minutes left and I have three senior Members who would like a second bite of the cherry. If they could each confine themselves to one question, we will see how we go.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.