Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2012.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

On a point of order, Mr Davies. Could I ask for some guidance on whether the planning Minister would be able to give some further guidance? He wrote a letter to the Committee yesterday, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich who had posed some questions about whether clause 5 was retrospective. The letter from the Minister says that he was confused, and it finishes: “I was confused by it myself.” There is no explanation in the letter about the retrospective nature of the clause, and I wondered whether there is any mechanism to have the Minister clarify the issue.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Unfortunately, the clause that his query relates to has now been disposed of by the Committee. I am sure that there will be future consideration of the Bill at different stages and that point may be something he wants to take up then, but we cannot do it now.

Clause 7 - Electronic communications code: the need to promote growth

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 7, page 9, leave out line 24 and insert—

‘(ba) the need to deliver sustainable development in the United Kingdom.’.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment 53, in clause 7, page 9, line 24, leave out

‘the need to promote economic growth in the United Kingdom’

and insert—

‘the need to promote economic growth in the UK through the Government’s broadband programme’.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Davies. Good morning to the whole of the Committee. I hope that Members have been avidly watching “Newsnight” and what seems to be developing as a nightly soap opera on planning. We will all be tuning in tonight as well.

Amendment 78 is the first of two amendments that seek to limit the potential damage of the clause when rolling out broadband and other electronic communications to rural areas. That is a worthy aim and one that we did much to progress and facilitate when we were in government. However, the Government are in danger of forgetting why national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty were developed in the first place. It was very much to conserve for future generations the beauty of those areas.

Consequently, the purpose of amendment 78 is to ensure not merely that economic growth is taken into account but that it should be of a sustainable nature. The amendment would put a requirement on electronic communications providers to consider at all times the need for any infrastructure that might be put into AONBs and national parks to contribute to sustainable development. In other words, it would not allow providers’ short-term need to get infrastructure in place—even if totally inappropriate for the area—to override the long-term sustainability of some of the most beautiful areas of this country.

I would be very surprised if the Minister does not accept the amendment, because it is totally consistent with the Government’s policy in these areas, as set out in paragraph 115 of the national planning policy framework, which states:

“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations”.

The NPPF goes on to say, in paragraphs 116 and 117, that

“the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy…must bear in mind the beauty and designation of those areas, and critically any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

That factor must also be taken into account in terms of any development. In fact, it should be at the forefront of decision making in planning related to those areas.

It therefore seems that the NPPF at least allowed for the fact that the environmental quality of those areas should take precedence in most circumstances, and indeed that is what underpins paragraph 115; development in the public interest should be moderated so as to protect their long-term viability. It seems, however, that the only way in which the Minister is taking on board the importance of the environmental quality of those areas is by dumping a shed-load of large cabinets and overhead cables and goodness knows what else into them. I point out to members of the Committee, who may not have looked at the issue as closely as I have in the last couple of weeks, that some cabinets are very large. They are certainly much taller than me and, I suspect, much taller even than the Minister. They are really quite substantial.

What those areas need is sensitive consideration, balancing development against the need to protect the environment. We want to see tourism development, but not where it impinges on the beauty of an area. We want small-scale manufacturing that is harmonious with the landscape. We want any infrastructure that is put in place to support enterprises that are appropriate to the area but, most significantly in terms of the amendment, that are suitable for these highly sensitive and beautiful places. They should not bring in development that has a detrimental impact on the area, which is very much what the NPPF seeks to avoid. I ask the Minister to go back to the NPPF and, in the context of the clause, to implement his own policy.

That is all I want to say at this stage. I should like to return to some of the wider issues on clause stand part. I urge the Minister to put into the Bill the need to sustain important and environmentally sensitive areas so that future generations can enjoy them as we do at the moment.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

It is a great pleasure to welcome you back to the Committee, Mr Davies. You have missed so much fun as we hurtled through the Bill in the last few days. I will not run through our arguments again, but will concentrate on the amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has done a good job this morning in exposing some of the difficulties in this wide-ranging clause. I will deal mainly with amendment 53, which relates to subsection (1). It aims to narrow the definition of economic growth and focus it on the Government’s stated intention in the policy, which they have not stated in the clause itself.

There has been considerable confusion over the scope of this part of the clause. The Secretary of State tried valiantly on Second Reading to confirm that the changes were to enable the Government to deliver their broadband aspirations for rural areas, but that is not what the clause says. It seems to be proposing to scrap the special and rightful protection offered to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty and to allow telecoms companies to install cabinets and masts in a free-for-all, without requiring permission from the relevant local authority.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that we should not worry. However, we emphasise that the clause does not state that it is related to broadband installation or the Government’s broadband programme; it refers only to the need to promote economic growth in the UK. That incredibly wide definition could mean anything in terms of the Communications Act 2003.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government, and the Minister in particular, have failed? They have had several opportunities to allay the concerns of people from across the planning sector that by refusing to limit the provision to broadband, they will open up areas of wonderful natural beauty to a whole list of things, such as radio masts. We must consider the clause as it stands and, as such, it is not limited to broadband.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

My hon. Friend’s intervention goes to the crux of what our amendment is trying to achieve. We welcome the Government’s reassuring words—the Secretary of State telling us not to worry—but if they want to clarify their intention, they will accept our amendment and limit what clause 7(1) inserts in the Communications Act specifically to broadband.

In our evidence sessions, we heard the CBI say that it supports the clause. We all support broadband, particularly in rural areas. In some parts of the country, local authorities, national parks and areas of natural beauty have come together to start to put that infrastructure in place, and it seems to be working. The Government may want to nudge those organisations to get conversations moving so that the roll-out of broadband is quicker than it is now, as is the Government’s stated intention. We agree with the CBI when it supported the clause in relation to the intention for broadband, but the clause does not refer to that.

As a party, we suggested having superfast broadband by 2012. The Government shifted the date to 2015, and as we move on to other amendments, it may drift to 2018. We all desire to ensure that everyone in the country has access to broadband; the arguments are around how it is delivered.

Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the Opposition’s position? Do they agree with such areas having only broadband? What about mobile technology, which is sadly lacking in many rural areas? That clearly needs to be instituted, as people constantly complain that it is not available.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

What an extraordinary intervention. The hon. Gentleman says that the clause may be used for items other than broadband, which is not the Government’s intention. In fact, the Secretary of State on Second Reading and the CBI and the Minister in our evidence sessions talked about broadband. The voices and noises to the industry and organisations involved with natural parks and areas of natural beauty are also under the impression that the clause relates to broadband. The hon. Gentleman now tells us that it is about rolling out everything else—4G, 5G and future Gs—which is exactly why we have tabled the amendment to limit it to broadband. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what was said by his colleague, who has argued the point for us.

That adds to the confusion about what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading about the clause making no change to the power of planning authorities to object to any plans for installations in sensitive areas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central said in response, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued a press notice at the start of September. It says that the Government will legislate—I assume this is the Bill that will do it—

“immediately following consultation where necessary, and/or use existing powers to ensure that…broadband street cabinets can be installed in any location other than a SSSI without the need for prior approval from the local council and without any conditions being placed upon the construction or design by local authorities except in exceptional circumstances”.

That alone seems to fly in the face of what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading and is slightly contradictory to clause 7. The notice continued by stating that

“broadband fibre and other broadband infrastructure can be located under or above private land without the bureaucratic burden of long-running negotiations; and…overhead broadband lines can be installed in any area without the need for planning or other permission”.

To reiterate, the press release issued by the DCMS on only 7 September says that broadband street cabinets can be installed in any location other than sites of special scientific interest, without, as stated in the attached notes,

“the need for prior approval from the local council”

in national parks and areas of natural beauty. That is not what the Secretary of State said, nor is it what the Minister himself said in the evidence sessions.

To be fair to the DCMS, the entire press release is predicated on delivering broadband. It says specifically that overhead broadband lines will be used. That is a specific reference made by the DCMS regarding broadband. Why does the Bill not mention it?

It is not clear what Government policy really is—little wonder in such a rag-bag of a Bill. The Government have form, because the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill was also well trailed as a rag-bag of a Bill. In their haste and panic for growth, the Government pulled policies off the shelves of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury that had probably been gathering dust for many years and decided to pop them together into a Bill without any proper explanation, evidence or analysis. Now we are seeing another ill thought-through Bill.

Stakeholders have been saying that if they work together, they could perhaps make clause 7 work, but the clause does not actually say what the Government intend. It talks of adding an economic growth qualification to section 109 of the Communications Act.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that an unintended consequence of the clause—I am sure that it is unintended—might be to limit economic growth in some of the areas that we are talking about, by placing unsightly cabinets and overhead lines in areas that we would want to promote for the tourism industry?

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

That is a key challenge. It is why the people who know best about the balance between tourism, natural beauty and the need to provide infrastructure are probably in the best place to advise the Government and telecoms infrastructure providers on how to accomplish that in the best way. We will come to that when we look at some of our amendments regarding consultation. A Bill that does not provide clarity will merely open up more uncertainty and run the risk of damaging economic growth, whether through tourism or otherwise. Many organisations involved in the process have stated quite clearly that that could be one of the significant unintended consequences.

Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat, Burnley)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s arguments regarding tourism. Is he trying to convince the Committee that tourism in such areas will be damaged by some broadband cabinets, which I am sure will be concealed in the right way with trees or things of that nature? Is he saying that there will be hundreds of them sticking up like sore thumbs all over the place? How will they damage tourism when they can be hidden by planting trees around them? Is he saying that that will damage UK tourism?

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point. We do not know if cabinets will be hidden, to make them more sensitive to their environment, because there will be no consultation with those involved. For the provision of economic growth, the measure allows the Secretary of State power to have no consultation with anyone about the installation of the cabinets. Broadband is not even mentioned.

If the clause is accepted, I hope that the Government will take into account the hon. Gentleman’s comments and that there will be provision for sensitivity to be shown to the environment where cabinets are to be installed, because the clause does not provide for any discussions about it. I hope that such aspirations will be fulfilled under the Bill because, as drafted, it does not allow for that to happen.

Furthermore, the comments on tourism and economic growth reflect the concerns that the Local Government Association, Living Streets and various other organisations have written about to all members of the Committee. I share those worries because they have been expressed by the bodies that know best. They have said only that the measure has the potential to damage economic growth, not that it is a matter of fact, so we should listen to them and provide some comfort under the Bill to deal with the issue.

The Communications Act 2003 runs to 660 pages. The Committee will be pleased that I do not intend to read out what is written on each of those pages. Section 32 does not refer to broadband itself, but to the meaning of electronic communications network and services, and states that

‘In this Act, ‘electronic communications network’ means—

(a) transmission system for the conveyance, by the use of electrical, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy, of signals of any description; and

(b) such of the following as re used, by the person providing the system and in association with it, for the conveyance of the signals—

(i) apparatus comprised in the system;

(ii) apparatus used for the switching or routing of the signals;

and

(iii) software and stored data.’

Given how wide the definition of “electronic communications” is, our major worry about the measure is that it still does not refer specifically to broadband.

The Government have failed to provide evidence of where there is a problem with installing broadband infrastructure in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In fact, the national parks and rural areas want broadband rolled out as quickly as possible, but they want it done with sensitivity to areas of special interest. Many areas are delivering that, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central gave some examples on Second Reading. North York Moors national park authority approved 94% of applications with regard to telecommunications equipment under the Act.

However, the Association of National Park Authorities, the Campaign for National Parks, Living Streets and the Wildlife and Countryside Link have also provided evidence to suggest that they are working with local authorities to provide such infrastructure. Moreover, the Conservative-led Local Government Association, although it is a cross-party body, has said that the clause has gone way beyond what the Government announced previously through their press release and subsequent press releases from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

We go back to our arguments about localism under clauses 1 and 2, because the clause will remove all democratic planning control not on broadband but on electronic communications as defined under the Act. Rather than the Minister giving a firm commitment to the Committee, the Bill should include the exact purpose. With regard to the Communications Act and the clause, the Minister should explain the meaning of references to “broadband” as between the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport, for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government, because there is considerable confusion.

Reference to such issues was made in my point of order, but the Under-Secretary admitted yesterday in his letter to the Committee, in response to questioning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, that he was confused about some retrospective legislation. I refer back to section 106 of the Act because, as everybody tells us, clause 7 continues that confusion. There is no clarity about what exactly the Government are trying to achieve. I hope we do not get another letter from the Minister of State in the next few days containing the line “I was confused by it myself”, although I am delighted that the Under-Secretary put that in a letter, as I am sure that it will come back to haunt him for the rest of his political career.

Confusion about the clause is a real problem. Our amendment would merely take away that confusion. We do not need the Minister to pop up and give us assurances; we need it put on the face of the Bill that the clause is directly related to broadband roll-out and the Government’s broadband programme.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only should the clause be limited to broadband, if that is what the Government mean it to apply to, but it should take the environment into account? Such considerations must be balanced against the need for economic growth so that affected areas are not ruined for future generations.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Absolutely. These issues are not mutually exclusive; they simply have to be dealt with in a sympathetic manner. As I have said, we all wish to see broadband rolled out to rural areas. Evidence has been submitted to Committee members from businesses that feel that they are struggling to grow and to operate properly because of the condition of broadband infrastructure. Nobody is saying that we should not address that, but that does not exclude saying that it should be done sympathetically. Indeed, it does not exclude arguing that clause 7 should simply say what the Government wish to achieve. If it did so, that might give some clarity not just to the industry in terms of delivering infrastructure but to businesses and rural communities, which deserve the same quality of broadband as many of us in urban areas already have.

I turn now to the phrase,

“the need to promote economic growth in the United Kingdom”,

which clause 7 inserts into section 109(2) of the Communications Act 2003. The phrase is so wide- ranging that it could mean anything. We heard about telecommunications in an intervention from the hon. Member for Harrow East. At the moment, 4G is being rolled out, but I suspect that 4G will not be the end of the telecommunications infrastructure that we will see in this country; we will probably have more generations—5G, 6G, and maybe even 7G or 8G—that will allow us to interact in real time with video, and have very fast download speeds. There is a need for that kind of infrastructure to grow. In referring to promoting economic growth, clause 7 almost prioritises that aim over other issues. The Government are using an open-ended phrase and then saying, “Trust us; this will be fine—it is just for broadband,” despite what was said in September in the unqualified press release from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That is simply not good enough.

I now turn the Committee’s attention to section 109(2) of the 2003 Act. It is in part 2 of the Act, which is titled

“Networks, services and the radio spectrum”;

section 109 itself has the title

“Restrictions and conditions subject to which code applies”.

Section 109(2) states:

“In exercising his power to make regulations under this section it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to each of the following”;

after mentioning the duties of Ofcom, crucially, section 109(2)(b) refers to

“the need to protect the environment and, in particular, to conserve the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside”.

It is at that point that clause 7 inserts

“the need to promote economic growth in the United Kingdom”,

in proposed new paragraph (ba). There is a slight contradiction, then, between proposed new paragraph (ba) to section 109(2) and section 109(2)(b). It would be far better for the Government to state in proposed new paragraph (ba) that the provision is about broadband infrastructure and the broadband programme. That would tie in quite consistently with the sunset provisions elsewhere in the clause, which state that some provisions in the clause will cease to have effect on 6 April 2018. The sunset provisions refer directly to the broadband programme. It would therefore be far better for the Government to determine that that is what they intend to do with clause 7, and insert that directly into the Communications Act 2003.

When the Minister responds can he tell us what happens if the provisions conflict? If the Secretary of State has the need

“to protect the environment and, in particular, to conserve the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside”

but has to take into account the need

“to promote economic growth in the United Kingdom”.

Those two clauses are not consistent; they conflict with each other. Which takes precedence? Which would take precedence for a telecommunications mast that is not related to broadband? Clause 7 is not confined to broadband, even though the intention of the clause is that it should relate to broadband, so would the Secretary of State give that precedence? Will the Minister address that issue in his response?

In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham during the evidence session, the Minister said:

“The object of clause 7 is to extend superfast broadband in rural areas…“The legislation does not extend to masts.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 17.]

But that is not what the legislation says. It actually says the complete opposite. If I can misquote the Minister to highlight the point, he essentially said to my hon. Friend that the clause, as it is written, extends to everything, including superfast broadband in rural areas, and the legislation could quite possibly extend to masts.

Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside)

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is particularly concerning because of the Government’s mobile infrastructure project to roll out connectivity to not spots across the country, which the Chancellor announced in 2011. Although he said originally that 6 million people would be covered, the number is now only 60,000. That could well affect masts being put up in rural areas, where they are needed.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

That is the point. Again, we have to emphasise that we do not have a problem with rolling out that kind of mobile infrastructure. Indeed, for economic growth purposes and for fairness and equality, it is important that every geographical section of the UK gets that infrastructure, but it has to be done properly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Government are covering 60,000 people when they promised 6 million, the clause could be used for that. That is the point we are trying to make.

I challenge the Minister to say that the clause does not extend to masts, and insert the word “broadband” to restrict it. Will he add the words “broadband infrastructure” to the clause and remove the word “masts” if that is what the Government intend, as he said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham during the evidence sessions?

I will finish by running through some of the evidence that has been given to us. When giving evidence to the Committee, Paul Raynes from the LGA said:

“There is genuine concern here. I acknowledge that Ministers and their officials are making reassuring noises about the limited scope of the policy intention here, but it is clear—it appears to us—that the text of the clause effectively gives Ministers the power to remake the communications code with growth as a criterion in it.”

That encapsulates the problem. The Local Government Association, which is a great supporter of the rolling out of broadband to rural areas and has played a role in doing that, is saying that it cannot support the Government’s current clause 7. It wants the clause to be removed from the Bill on the basis of the uncertainty that it gives. The LGA acknowledges the reassuring noises from the Government, but cannot understand why they are even required. The Government’s intention should be on the face of the Bill. Paul Raynes went on to say

“we will need, as the Bill goes forward, to really test what safeguards Ministers are putting in place in other parts of the system to restrict this to their declared policy intention”.––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 19, Q36.]

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport made clear that the policy intention is to roll out superfast broadband to rural areas. That is the Government’s declared policy intention. If it is not the Government’s declared policy intention, the Minister should correct the record of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and tell us exactly what the declared policy intention is. I suppose I am starting to sound a bit like a stuck record—a bit repetitive. [Hon. Members: “More, more.”] I am being encouraged by the planning Minister to say more, so perhaps I will give him a little more to satisfy his thirst for clause 7.

Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale)

Start from the beginning.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

My hon. Friend was not here at the beginning, so perhaps I should go right back to the start to make sure the Committee is fully aware of the arguments.

Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat, Burnley)

When the record becomes unstuck, will the hon. Gentleman advise us why he objects to having a few green cabinets over thousands of square miles of open countryside, when they will bring growth to communities in those areas? What is his objection, when companies are endeavouring to get into business in rural communities? That links to telecommunications, as well. What is his objection? If he can explain that, I would probably agree with his amendment.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I have absolutely no problem with a few green boxes over thousands of miles of open space, but that is not what the clause talks about, and that is exactly the argument. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening intently since the start of my contribution, he would have realised that I said on several occasions that we have absolutely no problem with these things being done properly, but that is not what the clause talks about. If the clause inserted a reference in the Communications Act to the need to promote economic growth in the United Kingdom and to deliver the Government’s broadband policy by having a few cabinets across thousands of miles of countryside, I am sure we would support it, but we are not supporting it, and the Local Government Association, the Association of National Park Authorities and the National Trust have all raised concerns about the wide scope of the clause.

We are not on different sides of the fence; we all want to deliver the same objective, and all the amendment says is that we should make that declared intention clear in the Bill. If we do, we will not have these arguments when hundreds of phone masts go up across the countryside because no local community or group has been able to object or even be involved in the process. As I said, many masts and broadband boxes are being put in place as we speak, through dialogue and consultation between local authorities and the bodies involved. Government Members have to realise that we are actually on the same side, but we are not on the same side as regards what the Bill says about broadband infrastructure, because it does not deal with it.

One witness who gave evidence to the Committee was very supportive of what the Government were trying to do in the clause, but they added:

“This clause is being introduced for the purpose of trying to secure the roll-out of broadband as quickly as possible, but the implication is that it could actually be used much more widely for any kind of telecommunications infrastructure. That is a concern.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 166, Q386.]

Even the people who support the clause—this goes back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Burnley— are saying that it will not deliver the Government’s intention and that that is a concern. We are merely telling the Government that if their declared intention is to insert something in the Communications Act to deliver their broadband programme across the country, the Bill should explicitly say that.

Dr Stone gave some wonderful evidence to the Committee on the whole Bill, but particularly on this issue. He clearly said that he did not see the point of the clause in general, and we might come on to that in the stand part debate. If there was a proper definition, however, the Minister might be able to see a way forward on the Bill more generally.

To summarise, we have had some weasel words from the Secretary of State, who told us not to worry. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham that the clause is about superfast broadband and not about masts, but it does not say that. Rather than giving us weasel words and promises that it might not be possible to deliver, the Minister should just make these things clear in the Bill, and we might then be able to support his intention.

I hope the Minister will accept our amendments, include them in the Bill and give us the Government’s real policy intention; otherwise, he may have to go back to his colleagues in the DCMS to explain why legislation is not being put in place to deliver the Government’s stated intentions.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

May I offer you a very warm welcome this morning, Mr Davies?

Both these amendments are restrictive. In their different ways, they would limit the scope of clause 7 and restrict the roll-out of broadband. We must be very clear as to what the impact might be. The hon. Member for City of Durham said that she wanted to see more tourism, more small-scale manufacturing and more infrastructure to support enterprise across the national parks. Such businesses depend on broadband, and should be entitled to as fast a service as applies elsewhere, in the larger cities.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about the proliferation of cabinets that, I think she said, were taller than herself. Cabinets up to 2.5 metres in height—I think that covers her—are already covered by permitted development. Let me be very clear that people proposing to site such cabinets will have a duty to consult, and they will have to abide by the siting code, which will be agreed between local authorities and providers in due course.

My real issue with the amendment is the scope of what the hon. Lady describes as sustainable development, because her definition goes too wide. In defining or focusing on sustainable development, we have to balance economic and social considerations alongside environmental considerations. Her definition goes much too far. The purpose of the clause is to help to deliver growth, and the expansion of broadband is conducive to growth. Many studies evidence that; one suggested that an increase of 1% in GDP would flow from every 10% increase in broadband usage.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

In the newly created South Downs national park in my county, West Sussex, that is precisely what communities and businesses are saying. It is perfectly reasonable, and in fact necessary, to achieve economic growth by supporting such 21st-century infrastructure.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend said, and it was useful to hear. It also gives me the opportunity to correct immediately something I just said to the hon. Member for City of Durham. I referred to 2.5 metres, but I have been corrected; it is not 2.5 metres in height, but 2.5 metres in volume. I do not think that anybody would suggest that any member of the Committee would be out-gunned by that measurement. I apologise to the hon. Lady for getting that wrong.

There is an issue in the national parks. The evidence submitted by the Royal Town Planning Institute says that

“it is clear that overall National Parks have some of the worst access to (availability of) superfast broadband in England, and National Parks in the North of England are particularly poorly served”.

I suggest that the wider definition of sustainable development is not particularly helpful, and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South spoke about amendment 53 at some length. I make no complaint about that, but I must repeat to him what I and other Ministers have already said, which is that there is absolutely no intention to relax any of the existing controls for mobile infrastructure. That cannot be placed on the face of the Bill because legislation in this area must be technology-neutral. That is not a requirement of the Government; it is a requirement of European Union legislation, specifically the regulatory framework for communications, which does not allow us to distinguish in primary legislation different types of electronic equipment. I am sorry about that. It may well be, Mr Davies, that you too regret that particular European requirement, but there it is.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The Minister says that he is unable to distinguish in primary legislation. Is he indicating a willingness to distinguish in secondary legislation?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

That is certainly a point I am happy to look at. The difficulty also follows that in handling different types of technology we are bound to be neutral. If we were doing anything in secondary legislation to facilitate one type of communication, that particular benefit would have to be extended to other types as well. It might be possible to distinguish in secondary legislation, but the same benefits might have to be extended to both. I will look further at that particular point.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South kept asking us to look at what the clause actually says. I am afraid I have to ask the Committee to look at what his amendment actually says. His amendment distinguishes between the Government’s broadband programme and, presumably, other programmes. The difficulty is that the clause is intended to apply to both commercial and publicly funded provision of broadband. If it was not, we would be accused of distorting competition. Both, of course, have a role to play in delivering the broadband infrastructure that the economy needs, and our strategy encompasses both, so we have a two-pronged approach to achieving that.

We want the market to lead in the provision of broadband services, so we are acting to ensure that the environment is as supportive as possible of investment in broadband infrastructure, but we also recognise that there are some places that the market will not reach unaided, so we are prepared to intervene to support broadband roll-out in those areas. The Committee will be aware of the rural broadband programmes and the £530 million of Government money made available to assist there, and also a further £20 million for the community rural broadband programme. Mr Davies, I hope you will not ask me to distinguish between the rural and the community broadband programmes; they are both publicly funded.

Alongside the programmes, we have significant private investment by BT, Virgin Media, Kcom and some other smaller infrastructure providers. BT, for example, is committed to investing £2.5 billion in its commercial roll-out programme, under which it is expected to roll out fibre broadband to two thirds of UK premises by spring 2014. Its fibre broadband services are already available to 12 million homes and its commercial roll-out is expected to serve two thirds of UK premises by spring 2014. Virgin Media’s network, which serves around half the UK, is the result of a £13 billion historic investment in the UK cable network. The company continues to invest around two thirds of £1 billion on an annual basis.

To give an indication of the coverage gap that public and private sector broadband investment needs to bridge, let me give the Committee the latest information from Ofcom’s UK infrastructure report update, published on 16 November. It shows that superfast broadband in urban areas has reached 84% and in semi-urban areas 65%, but in rural areas only 19%. The planning changes that we are proposing to introduce will reduce the cost of deployment and create much more certainty for the market. That is essential to enable commercial development to go as far as it can and to ensure that public funds are invested efficiently to capitalise on those particular benefits. I do not think it would be right, therefore, to restrict the amendment to the Government’s programme, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South proposes, and exclude the market sector.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am very interested in the Minister’s comments about why sustainability is not central to the whole issue of national parks and development in those areas. I shall go away and look at his comments again and study them in the light of the NPPF and the centrality it gives sustainable development. I hope that we have made it clear, but I am going to say it again for the record: we are absolutely committed to the roll-out of broadband to rural areas, including superfast broadband. In government, we did much to facilitate that, so our comments are absolutely not about restricting broadband and its roll-out across the country. We acknowledge how important it is. Our concern is that the clause does not limit itself to broadband, and we are worried, as are a lot of other people, about the impact that could have on those important communities.

I would appreciate it if the Minister would let us know exactly which bit of European legislation restricts us from limiting the clause to broadband. If he wishes to put that in a letter to me, my colleagues and members of the Committee, I would be grateful to receive it. I am also pleased that he has said that he will go away and see if something can be put in regulations. That would be a helpful way forward.

I repeat that we would have liked to see some support given to Ofgem and communities to enable them to receive superfast broadband by applying a levy, and that this is absolutely not about restricting the roll-out of broadband; it is about looking at a better way of delivering it than the clause provides. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 7, page 9, line 33, leave out ‘6 April 2018’ and insert ‘31 December 2015’.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 87, in clause 7, page 9, line 36, at end insert—

‘(c) the resulting regulations are expressed so as to require any person to whom the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (“the electronic communications code”) applies, before executing works in a national park, to consult—

(i) the National Park Authority for the park in question,

(ii) each local planning authority in whose area the works are proposed to be executed, and

(iii) such other persons as he considers appropriate.’.

Amendment 55, in clause 7, page 9, line 44, leave out ‘6 April 2018’ and insert ‘31 December 2015’.

Amendment 88, in clause 7, page 9, line 46, at end insert—

‘(c) the resulting regulations are expressed so as to require any person to whom the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (“the electronic communications code”) applies, before executing works in a national park, to consult—

(i) the Committee for Nature Conservation and the Ulster Countryside Committee,

(ii) each district council in whose area the works are proposed to be executed, and

(iii) such other persons as he considers appropriate.’.

Amendment 56, in clause 7, page 10, line 8, leave out ‘6 April 2018’ and insert ‘31 December 2015’.

Amendment 89, in clause 7, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

‘(c) the resulting regulations are expressed so as to require any person to whom the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (“the electronic communications code”) applies, before executing works in the Broads, to consult—

(i) the Broads Authority,

(ii) each local planning authority in whose area the works are proposed to be executed, and

(iii) such other persons as he considers appropriate.’.

Amendment 57, in clause 7, page 10, line 21, leave out ‘6 April 2018’ and insert ‘31 December 2015’.

Amendment 90, in clause 7, page 10, line 23, at end insert—

‘(c) the resulting regulations are expressed so as to require any person to whom the code set out in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (“the electronic communications code”) applies, before executing works in an area of outstanding natural beauty, to consult—

(i) any conservation board that exists in respect of the area of outstanding natural beauty, or, if no conservation board exists, Natural England or the Countryside Council for Wales, as appropriate,

(ii) each local planning authority in whose area the works are proposed to be executed, and

(iii) such other persons as he considers appropriate.’.

Amendment 58, in clause 7, page 10, line 24, leave out ‘6 April 2018’ and insert ‘31 December 2015’.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The amendments are fairly self-explanatory. The first refers to the Government’s sunset clause of 6 April 2018; we wish to change the dates through amendments 54 to 58 to 31 December 2015. The amendments would tighten the time scales.

I refer again to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport press release, where the Government say that they intend

“to have the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015.”

With that in mind, why do the Government need to keep the clause in place until 2018? Are they not ambitious enough to roll out the programme? Indeed, it has been delayed from the previous Government’s intention of having it completed by 2012. Are they not ambitious enough to want to bring that date forward? Are they anticipating major issues because the legislation, as we have discussed on previous clauses, has been rushed through and is slightly ill thought-out? Are they seriously saying that the previous Government’s target of 2012 will be missed by a whole six years? That is why we want to bring the date forward to 2015.

Given the significant concerns expressed by many organisations about the intention of the clause, which we have already discussed, hopefully the Minister will give us some information about the European legislation he referred to. Perhaps we can get something in writing from the Secretary of State to say that the clause will be restricted to broadband. That might go some way to alleviating some of the concerns of the industry and the stakeholders.

I think it was the Secretary of State who said on Second Reading that the clause exists to provide impetus to the programme to bring superfast broadband forward and have it rolled out across the country. If that is the impetus behind the Government’s programme and they wish to see it by 2015, bringing the date in the sunset clause back to 31 December 2015 would give them even more impetus to deliver it within the time scales that are already set.

When I was reading through the explanatory notes to the Bill yesterday, I took some time out to have a quick flick through this month’s edition of The Spectator. The Prime Minister said that we wanted to deliver broadband as quickly as possible by “cutting the red tape”. There was a lovely cartoon in The Spectator of a married couple arguing in a marriage counsellor’s office. The counsellor says, “Have you tried blaming it on red tape?” If the Government are intent on saying that everything is to do with red tape and that they are slashing red tape to give impetus to all these initiatives, perhaps we should cut red tape right back to the end of 2015 and try to get this initiative done as quickly as possible. Amendments 54 to 58 would simply ensure that the dates are put back.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a strong case in support of the amendments. If the clause is supposed to support economic growth, and given the state of our economy we need that growth sooner rather than later, does he agree that it seems a little odd that the Government are extending the deadline for having superfast broadband and broadband to 2018, rather than really seizing the moment and getting on with it as quickly as possible?

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

My hon. Friend leads me down the path of debating the Government’s economic strategy where I am sure you would call me to order, Mr Davies. However, she makes a key point. If the Government are so “desperate for growth”—the formulation we heard just last week—bringing the date forward to 2015 might give that added impetus to get the broadband infrastructure in. As the Minister said, a 1% increase in broadband equates to a 10% increase in GDP, or was it the other way around?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The other way around.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Ten per cent increase in broadband adds 1% of GDP. Let us hope that 1% adds 10% and we will dig the trenches ourselves to roll out broadband to rural communities.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Can I bring the hon. Gentleman back to that cartoon about cutting red tape? Could he explain how shortening the period of time in which the red tape is relaxed somehow cuts red tape? Is he in fact not seeking to reimpose the red tape three years earlier than the Government propose? Perhaps he could explain that paradox.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

What we are trying to do is completely the opposite. We are trying to say, “Let’s temporarily cut the red tape until the end of 2015. That is the window of opportunity. You’ve got to get on with this programme and get it rolled out as quickly as possible to provide the growth the Minister says we all want to see.” We could keep the date at 2018, but that might delay investment decisions by some of the organisations and stakeholders involved in providing that type of infrastructure. It gives them a tighter focus if we say, “Let’s get on with it now.” If we approach the end of 2015 and there are some difficulties I am sure the Government—a Labour Government by then—could come back and extend the time line. Narrowing the window of opportunity, however, might allow the impetus to move slightly quicker.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is agreeing or disagreeing with me that a six-year window in red tape creates less red tape than a three-year window. For him to argue that he is cutting red tape to a greater extent than proposed in the Bill is not entirely accurate.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but let me give another analogy to try to highlight our point. The Government often use taxation policies to give a boost to the economy or to certain sectors. One could argue that cutting stamp duty for first-time buyers is a way of temporarily boosting that part of the economy. That would not be kept in place for 10 years, because first-time buyers might then wait six years before doing anything. If there is a short window of opportunity for a change in taxation it gives an immediate boost. That is what we are trying to do. I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Six years of cutting red tape has double the benefit of cutting it for three years. The Prime Minister said that he wants to give a boost to the initiative, so let us give that boost a shorter window of opportunity to make sure that it happens quicker rather than delaying it for three years. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I are in a different place: we are just arguing different things—comparing apples with oranges.

I turn now to amendments 87 to 90. With the Bill, the Government have taken their entire localism agenda, popped a syringe into its side and dragged out all the localism. They have syringed all the localism out of their policies. Amendments 87 to 90 would put a little bit of that localism back on to the agenda. There are examples from all over the country where planning permission has been given to allow infrastructure to be put in place to deliver Government and local community goals of better broadband while respecting the local community. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

The amendments do not say that there has to be a laborious planning process or that we have to revert to red tape. I will use amendment 87 as an example, because the amendments are all the same although they refer to different bodies. All they say is that some sort of cognisance has to be taken of the national park authority for the area that it is charged by legislation to look after, the local planning authority where the area is and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, who might be the service providers. If we can get a discussion going between national park authorities, the local council and service providers, we might resolve many of the problems that people are fearful will be thrown up by the Bill.

Although we are talking about trying to achieve a sensitive thing in rural communities, it seems a little strange that there will be no formal discussions under the Bill between the people who are charged to look after sensitive areas, the local authorities who have the democratic accountability to look after those areas, and the service providers themselves, who may be able to find solutions and map out the boxes they might put in place. To return to the intervention by the hon. Member for Burnley, it may mean just a few boxes within hundreds of square miles or kilometres in areas of special scientific interest or in a national park, but that discussion should be accommodated by the legislation to ensure that there is a minimum. We could run into a danger. Where a historical conflict or a conflict about installing the infrastructure could easily be resolved by some kind of consultation, the Bill allows for the service provider to go straight in with permission from the Secretary of State and ride roughshod over local accountability and the localism that the Government wish to see.

It is beyond comprehension that the Government would not include some provision for consultation with the relevant national park authority, the local authority or other persons such as the service provider themselves. As I have said already, we do not want the Bill to end up being another piece of the legislation that is attached to planning permission, but we want to look at consultation and discussion.

Dr Stone from the English National Parks Authorities Association told the Committee:

“The potential of clause 7 is for the company to say, ‘Well, actually, we don’t really need to engage with that lot—we can get on with it.’”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 151, Q349.]

The reason why he said that goes back to my point about the potential for historical conflict. Service providers are trying to provide a service. National park authorities are trying to execute their duties to the best of their abilities. However, if there has been a historical conflict, or if there is a future conflict over something incredibly sensitive, the way the Bill has been written will allow the service provider to say, “The Secretary of State has given us permission. Do this, or we will just go ahead and do that.” I do not think that that is in anyone’s interest.

Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat, Burnley)

How would consulting the different authorities change the view that the hon. Gentleman is expressing? People could just say, “All right, we’ll consult them, but we’ll still go ahead and do it.” There is no power in the Bill for the authorities to say, “We object to it. It has to go to a separate body.” The amendment just says “consult”. The Secretary of State says that people can still go ahead. How will that change how the law will work?

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I tend to see the best in people. I will again use national park authorities as an example. If we are able to bring them together with the service provider and the local authority, there may be solutions to the majority of the problems. A lot of the evidence provided to the Committee shows that that is already happening; although planning permission has to be sought in certain circumstances, the local authority, the national parks authority and the service providers have come together to try to find a solution. The solution might not be ideal for them all, but at least they have been able to do that. That might allow the majority of those discussions to happen, and they might agree a plan that is acceptable to them all, rather than just saying, “Actually, the Secretary of State has power to do this, so we will let him get on with it.” The Minister is right to a certain extent in that if those discussions do not formulate something acceptable, the Government can go ahead and do it anyway, but it is incumbent on the Government to legislate to allow that consultative dialogue to happen to try to make the situation better.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the framing of the clause, and indeed the way Government Members have asked some of their questions, seems to ignore the fact that a number of national park authorities are already facilitating the roll-out of broadband because they want appropriate and sensitive development in their area? They are often part of rural economic development partnerships that want appropriate development locally, and they should not simply be treated as a block to the roll-out of broadband. In reality, that is not the role they are undertaking.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Absolutely. That is precisely the point of trying to ensure that the legislation takes cognisance of those legitimate views.

Without wishing to sound too flippant, I would be very surprised if there were an installation in a sensitive area that had not gone to public consultation, because a copy of the Liberal Democrat “Focus” would have popped through my letterbox telling me how disgraceful it was. This is about local accountability and being able to show that there has at least been some kind of dialogue between parties involved in the process. If the Government do not allow a mechanism to be included in the Bill that would encourage parties to come together and have such dialogue, why would the parties bother spending time or resources to do that when they could just make an application and send the diggers in to do what they want?

As with the section 106 affordable housing issues that we discussed at great length on Tuesday, many local authorities, as my hon. Friend has just said, are happy to have sensible discussions about planning with developers. We must provide some kind of framework and environment for that dialogue to take place, because I suspect the vast majority of proper discussions between interested parties and developers result in fairly amicable solutions and help to instil trust in the system. Part of the problem we have got into in this country—for the planning Minister, by “country” I mean the United Kingdom—is that the general public almost distrust the planning system. Whether that is because they do not know how it operates, because they have had bad experiences or because they read newspaper articles, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the public and what the planning legislation is trying to achieve. If we end up passing legislation that says, “We know there is a perception of public distrust in the planning system, so we will give the Secretary of State power to forget about local accountability and drive forward these initiatives without at least some consultation,” we are not doing anything to resolve some of those perceptions about trust.

The Minister said on Second Reading that

“providers will still have to notify local authorities of their plans.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 691.]

I am not sure the Bill actually says that. Perhaps in his response he can give us some comfort that there will have to be a referral to the local authorities concerned. If that is the intention, will he put it in the Bill? Instead of local authorities, perhaps it could be local authorities and some of the organisations charged with looking after these areas, such as the national park authority, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Countryside Commission or the Broads Authority.

Wildlife and Countryside Link echoed that point clearly in its submission to the Committee:

“National Park Authorities are taking a proactive approach to facilitating broadband delivery… we need a planned and co-ordinated approach to delivering future telecommunications networks.”

That concurs with my point that the national park authorities are taking a proactive approach, because having broadband infrastructure in rural areas benefits them, the countryside, tourism and economic growth. Broadband would be a winner for all, but it has to be done appropriately. The amendments are merely an attempt to lever in a slightly more proactive approach and put a little localism back into a Bill that has sucked localism from the heart of Government policy. The LGA said that the clauses would provide some sort of democratic accountability to councillors to assess the plans and have some local input without the formal planning process, and that is what we seek to achieve.

To conclude, the clause tells local authorities that, essentially, they will be given localism with one hand but many other hands will take that responsibility away. It is just a way to get people to sit around the table, consult with the relevant authorities who are concerned with the legislation and come up with a plan that may be acceptable, before the Secretary of State’s boot comes down to tell them that actually he will deliver it anyway.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

One of the advantages of the intimacy of a Committee such as this is that we learn more about its members, and we now know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South is a regular reader of The Spectator. I am grateful to him for moving the amendments in the way that he did.

The amendments cover two broad areas: reducing the time available for the broadband roll-out and requiring operators to consult. Broadband deployment is a key component of our package of measures to help to kick-start economic growth, create jobs and support our long-term economic future. The proposed planning relaxations will benefit both commercial and publicly funded fixed broadband deployments.

We heard powerful evidence in the oral evidence sessions on the need for broadband roll-out. Mike Spicer, from the British Chambers of Commerce, said that “the strong message”—from his members—

“is they want broadband and they want it now. Anything that can move that along is something they would see as a positive development”.––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 13 November 2012; c. 35, Q82.]

Pamela Learmonth of the Broadband Stakeholder Group said:

If we are keen to get this infrastructure out to communities that are crying out for that connectivity and are lobbying their MPs and the Government to do so, we think that the changes can make a real impact on the ground and ensure that the connectivity gets out there as efficiently as possible.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 109, Q254.]

The purpose of the clause, which I will be invited to describe again if there is a stand part debate, is to allow secondary legislation to be amended to deliver precisely that relaxation. The five-year period of relaxation in the statute was not chosen at random; it is intended to incentivise and bring forward investment in broadband infrastructure, which aims to support the Government’s initial, short-term target as well as our longer term target. The short-term target is to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. In the longer term, there is the challenging EU target of ensuring 100% access of at least 30 megabits per second by 2020, and 50% subscribing to 100 megabits per second services in that same time scale.

Although we are clear about the need to fast-track broadband deployment, curtailing the scope of the provision to 31 December 2015, in the way that the hon. Gentleman proposes, is overly restrictive and would not help with the more challenging longer term targets.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I was struck by the calculations in the impact assessment, and I am sure the Minister is aware of them. The measure would give almost 4.4 million additional homes access to superfast broadband, particularly in areas that would receive a quick, direct economic benefit from broadband access.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The impact assessment is well worth reading on that point, so I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which underlines the urgency and scale of the broadband roll-out that the relaxation is intended to deliver. The problem with the amendment is that if we accepted it literally, the actual time available is likely to be only about two and a half years, given the likely passage of the Bill through another place, with Royal Assent, we hope, in the spring, and any time spent after that triggering the commencement date. That is too restrictive; we need the longer period, so I cannot ask the Committee to accept amendments 54 to 58.

Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat, Burnley)

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. The coalition Government are committed to growth, particularly in rural areas, where we all accept that pay is low and facilities are limited. We need to boost growth in those areas to provide more highly skilled jobs and decent salaries. Does the Minister agree that we have to get on with that? As he said, the amendments are very restrictive, and could actually hold us back.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I agree: the amendments may well hold back the investment that has to roll out over the next two to three years. We would have a completely artificial cut-off point of only two and a half years after the Bill goes through. I cannot, therefore, ask the Committee to support amendments 54 to 58.

Perhaps I can comfort the hon. Member for Edinburgh South by turning to amendments 87 to 90. I do not agree that there is a need to specify in the Bill the consultation requirements for secondary legislation affecting national parks and other protected areas. That is because existing secondary legislation—to be precise, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003—already provides for that, and will continue to do so.

The regulations consist, to a large extent, of requirements for consultation with, and notification to, highway and planning authorities about the installation of communications apparatus. They already require communications operators to consult planning authorities, and specify the organisations that have to be consulted about the installation of apparatus in protected areas. There are no plans to alter those requirements in the forthcoming consultation on changes to other secondary legislation.

I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendments; he wants to make sure, as we do, that consultation is appropriate and directed at the right people. I therefore draw his attention to the existing regulations. If he has concerns that they are in any way defective, I am happy to look at his points. With that consolation, I hope that he is prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The Minister commented on the completely artificial date of 31 December 2015; that is a slightly more erroneous artificial date than the artificially created date of April 2018. We can argue about why 2018, and not 2015, has been chosen and about whether it is artificial. I am slightly comforted by the Minister’s response, and I will look at the specifications he mentioned.

I am not comforted by the Minister’s putting on the record that I love the said publication. I will check that it was not the New Statesman, because I have a seed of doubt—it was perhaps not The Spectator,but the New Statesman that I was reading—and I will correct the record this afternoon, if I may, Mr Davies. However, on the basis of the consolation and comfort I have had from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

It is hardly surprising that the Campaign for National Parks wishes to delete all of the clause. In its evidence to the Committee, it pointed out, quite rightly, that its

“Mission is to inspire everyone to enjoy and look after National Parks”—

which it describes as—

“The nation’s green treasures.”

I think that is how we all experience them, at the moment in any case.

Of course we all wish to see those green treasures left in a fit state to pass on intact to future generations. Surely, that is what is at risk from the measures in the clause. All of us accept that the countryside cannot be preserved in aspic, and that rural areas need growth too. I would have thought that there is universal agreement across the Committee that people in rural areas want and need broadband too.

As the Campaign for National Parks pointed out, the Committee has received no evidence whatever that the additional protection afforded to designated landscapes has acted as a barrier to rural growth or delayed the roll- out of broadband. Indeed, it suggested that the opposite has taken place. National park authorities are taking a proactive approach to facilitating broadband and mobile delivery, but in a way that minimises the visual impact. It gave a number of examples. In Northumberland—a county close to my heart because it borders my constituency in County Durham—the national park authority has worked with the local enterprise partnership to gain £1 million for a rural growth hub right in the centre of the national park. That included delivering high-speed broadband. Further, it has worked with Northumberland county council to deliver improvements to 3,000 adjacent premises.

In the Peak District national park, mobile phone operators have discussed their roll-out plans with the national parks authority prior to submitting an application. That has made it possible to avoid siting masts in the most damaging locations in wild corridors or to design them in such a way that minimises their visual impact. Furthermore, the South Downs and New Forest national park authorities are members of the rural economy action group. They have supported bids by Hampshire county council and West Sussex county council to Broadband Delivery UK. There are many more such examples. I will not extend our deliberations unduly by going through them one by one.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

As always, my hon. Friend makes a convincing case. Has she come across any evidence of cases where broadband has been stopped because of the concerns raised by national park authorities?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I shall come on to the lack of evidence in a moment. I did not come across an example of a national park authority stopping broadband roll-out. No doubt the fact that we have raised the point in Committee may elicit some information from out there, if indeed there is any.

National park authorities, rather than being a barrier to broadband delivery, in many parts of the country are actively facilitating its roll-out. There is, however, a second and serious point to note from those examples, which is that the clause risks setting a dangerous precedent by introducing an exemption for the Secretary of State to have regard to the purposes for which national parks, including the Broads Authority, are designated. The Campaign for National Parks claims that significant degradation could result from the measures in the clause with no guarantee of economic growth as a result. It could significantly undermine the ability of national parks to drive a hard bargain with mobile phone companies or broadband deliverers and could mean that many of the achievements set out in my earlier examples would no longer be possible.

The clause would also ignore the fact that national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on rely heavily on tourism. Obviously, many visitors are specifically attracted to such areas by the beauty of the landscape, which includes uninterrupted views. Tourists are likely to be put off entirely if they are tripping over a broadband cabinet every five minutes, banging their heads on overhead cables or bumping into mobile phone masts or if they are unable to see a view of a valley or a hillside because overhead cables, cabinets, masts and other electronic bits and pieces are getting in the way. We also know that many national park authorities have been successful in getting energy companies and others to put cables underground, so that the beauty of the landscape is not threatened. It is unclear whether their bargaining hand to do so will be undermined by the clause.

It is shocking that so much of our precious countryside is being put at risk without the Government presenting a shred of evidence in support of their case. The impact assessment cites evidence from BT that broadband roll-out delays range from 12 to 27 months. We are not given an idea of how many cases that relates to, so it could be just two, and such cases could be totally unrepresentative. We also do not have an indication of whether the situation is improving as national park authorities adapt and adopt best practice for their areas and therefore speed up decision making. I am particularly suspicious that the impact assessment states that

“the proposed interventions…will reduce the burden of the planning system on business by removing uncertainty and delay”—

and—

“will help reduce the costs”.

How? That is the question that the Minister must answer. How will burdens be reduced unless businesses no longer have to consider the special environment of such areas? How will costs be reduced unless overhead cables and unsightly boxes are allowed where currently they are not because the location is inappropriate? A sensible Government would be facilitating the adoption of good practice everywhere. That would improve certainty. Mobile phone companies would know that they had to plan to bury cables, and broadband providers would know that cabinets must be disguised. The clause runs the risks of cheap, unsightly electronic communications equipment ruining some of our most beautiful countryside. If ever there was a short-term, misguided policy, this must be it.

Given that the impact assessment contains next to no evidence as to why such an extraordinary measure is needed, I turned to the oral evidence given to the Committee, particularly that of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, which seems to be almost a lone voice in being broadly in support of the clause—although it, too, had some concerns. The group said that 2,500 cabinets had been delayed. It then said that such evidence was anecdotal, so I am not clear whether the number of cabinets is 2,500, whether the group thought that the figure might be about 2,500 or whether it did not know the number and that it was just a figure that had been bandied about because we have no further information.

The group seemed most worried about the inconsistency in the policy. It was not the delay, but just that it wanted more certainty. It is not clear how the clause will deal with the issues of certainty and inconsistency, unless the Government intend local authorities, national parks and so on just to agree to everything they are asked to agree to, regardless of the consequences for their local communities. As the Minister confirmed, consultation with local authorities will be taking place, so a better approach would be to have clarity about the code of practice, what needs to be delivered and in what way, within a given time scale.

It is worth noting that those who gave evidence to the Committee were coy about whether the clause would facilitate the installation of more overhead lines. There was much talk of a consultation at DCMS and a code of practice emerging at some time. However, they did not need to be so circumspect because the impact assessment makes it clear that more overhead cables are exactly what the Government have in mind. It states:

“There may be some small-scale adverse impact on visual amenity, as well as some increased operating cost to providers should they decide to deploy new overhead lines as a result of this.”

Clearly, there is an expectation that the measures under the clause will lead to more overhead cables.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

My hon. Friend has made an important point. How does it chime with the Minister’s answer in Committee that the clause had absolutely nothing to do with masts and that it would not include masts?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am sure that the Minister was paying attention to the point that my hon. Friend has just made. We want clarification of the range of different types of equipment that might be allowed, if not facilitated, under the clause.

The impact assessment includes hardly a word about the impact of overhead cables, never mind giving us a full-scale assessment of the negative consequences on local communities. If the Government consider that the impact of the clause will be small-scale, will they let the rest of us have the evidence on which they based that assumption? It is exasperating, is it not, that such a weak impact assessment relates to some of our most beautiful countryside?

The Campaign for National Parks said that the Government expect that the powers will be used primarily for the installation of overhead broadband lines. Unlike the Government, however, it notes that there is a strong desire for a complete removal of overhead lines in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In any case, it points out that there is nothing to prevent the same powers from being used by a telecommunications provider to install other infrastructure, such as radio masts.

It is also strange that the impact assessment makes so much of the fact that the clause will reduce costs. The Campaign for National Parks suggests that there is a willingness to pay for the undergrounding of the overhead lines in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It notes that Ofgem has agreed an allowance of £60 million to be spent on undergrounding of electricity lines between 2010 and 2015. That allowance is based on the principle of willingness to pay and is paid for by consumers. In the interests of protecting our countryside and meeting the needs of areas for broadband, surely the Government would have been better exploring an approach such as this one. We know that clause 7 could stall growth, particularly of tourism, and that it plays fast and loose with our environment. The Minister cannot have failed to note the huge barrage of criticism that has been levelled at his Government on this matter.

The Royal Town Planning Institute notes that it is not national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty per se that are the problem, as superfast broadband varies between them. It also notes that the east of England appears to have a particular problem. Surely the Government should concentrate their efforts in supporting areas where there is a problem, rather than risking a planning free-for-all that could severely damage our natural environment.

Like us, the Campaign to Protect Rural England is simply in despair and wants this clause removed from the Bill. I cannot put the damage that could be inflicted by the clause better than the CPRE has put it:

“The proposal that the key purpose of natural parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to conserve beauty could be overridden in order to provide infrastructure is alarming and it would establish a dangerous and wholly inappropriate precedent.”

But the Minister must also state why his Government have gone back on assurances that were given in a November 2011 consultation on overhead telecommunications deployment that they

“would not relax protections for designated landscapes.”

Yet here we are, some months later, with a clause in the Bill that does precisely what the Government said they would not do.

The CPRE makes the point, which is clearly apparent from the examples I gave earlier, that it is possible to roll out superfast broadband and conserve beauty at the same time. Furthermore, it points out what an enormous waste of money could result from the clause, because the money that Ofgem has already invested in undergrounding cables could now be put at risk by other overhead lines for other telecommunications equipment going into the same areas where money has already been spent on undergrounding cables.

What we see is a damning set of responses to this particular clause, but that is hardly surprising when the beauty of our countryside is being put at risk without a shred of evidence in support of the Government’s position. But it is worse than that. I know that that is difficult to accept, but that is because yet again we are debating a clause that tells us we are waiting for both a consultation document and a code of practice, neither of which we have seen, and yet apparently we need to see both of those things to understand what the clause is seeking to do.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

My hon. Friend makes the point about the consultation and guidance. Many of our amendments this morning were about getting clarity from the Minister and reassurances that this clause will not have wide-ranging effects on the countryside. The fact that we have tabled those amendments shows that there is confusion, and that perhaps the consultation and guidance should have accompanied the Bill to help us out in our deliberations.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, I wonder whether he agrees that we should perhaps feel a little comforted by the fact that the Minister himself is confused about a number of matters relating to the Bill.

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

It is me, not the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is confused.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am sorry. It is the Planning Minister who is apparently confused; we know that from the letter that he has written to all of us. The serious point is that this is not a way to make good policy, particularly a policy that could have such an impact on our beloved countryside. The Government got into a habit of U-turns a few months ago and I urge them to do so again and remove the clause.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. There comes a point in a country’s economic life when the Government have a responsibility to drive forward a particularly important part of our infrastructure to build economic growth. Putting more broadband capacity into Britain is a clear economic imperative. Evidence from around the world is clear that countries that are advanced in the spread of superfast broadband can improve their economic competitiveness, compete in a globalised world and a globalised economy and create jobs. We have reached a time in our economic history where we need to make a concerted effort to improve superfast broadband access across the United Kingdom as quickly and as practically as possible to achieve those economic goals.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, the clause introduces a provision to promote economic growth into section 109 of the Communications Act 2003. It does not say that economic growth should be the only consideration that the Secretary of State should take into account when determining where infrastructure should be built. It quite sensibly adds to and updates that section to reflect the importance of economic growth when the Secretary of State is making regulations in relation to this area. It does not supersede other considerations that are laid out in that Act. It merely adds an important economic imperative for Britain as we seek to upgrade our national infrastructure to compete in this globalised economy.

As I pointed out earlier, the impact assessment says that approximately 4.4 million additional homes will receive superfast broadband as a result of this intervention. It states:

“The impact of this is improved access to superfast broadband for up to 4.375m households, most of which will be in more suburban and rural areas where the commercial case for deployment is more challenging under existing rules. Greater access in these communities will help diversify the local economy and enable greater growth than without this improved infrastructure.”

The hon. Lady pointed to the evidence presented to us by the Broadband Stakeholder Group, by Mrs Pamela Learmonth. The hon. Lady was a little selective in what she quoted. Mrs Learmonth said:

“BT has said that some 2,500 cabinets have been taken out of their programmes as a result of the current planning regime…we think that the changes can make a real impact on the ground and ensure that the connectivity gets out there as efficiently as possible. At the moment, there can be some inconsistency between planning authorities.”

She then refers to anecdotal evidence. She was not referring to BT’s clear statement of the impact of the current regime on their inability to roll out 2,500 cabinets as quickly as possible. She said:

“We have some anecdotal evidence of people being asked for fees even justto meet local authorities to discuss where cabinets are to be sited. These sorts of things will naturally get in the way of an efficient and quick roll-out.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 109, Q254.]

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My point was that the evidence from BT was not before us and, to my knowledge, has not been presented to the Committee. There was, therefore, a degree of hearsay in the evidence presented to us.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

The statement was clear from the Broadband Stakeholder Group, whose Pamela Learmonth said,

“BT has said that some 2,500 cabinets have been taken out of their programmes as a result of the current planning regime.”––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2012; c. 109, Q254.]

We have clear evidence from that group of the impact of the current regime on our ability to roll out broadband speedily. It is also true that, with the DCMS coming up, the Broadband Stakeholder Group is calling for a code of practice to be put in place. I do not see why it would be in the interest of a company to want to erect broadband boxes that were completely unsuited to a particular environment, but I would welcome a code of practice to ensure that there was agreement on a suitable way to erect boxes in these areas.

Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)

I have viewed some of the hon. Lady’s comments with a sense of absurdity. I wonder whether rural communities in the 19th century railed against red pillar boxes being installed, when that was the main method of communication. Surely green broadband boxes would be less offensive, although of course we all love the red pillar box now.

James Morris (Conservative, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting historical point. That supports my argument that at the beginning of the 21st century we are in a time of rapid change and economic development, which means we cannot afford to hold back in ensuring that Britain has the broadband infrastructure necessary to compete in a rapidly changing world.

I also welcome—as it reinforces the point—the imperative, over a five-year period with implicit sunset clauses, that this period of deregulation will last for a fixed time. In that fixed time, the Government should make all efforts to achieve the goal of superfast broadband access across the UK.

In summary, as I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer, the clause is necessary for a vital area of economic growth. It supports the imperative to get more superfast broadband access into our rural and suburban areas as quickly as possible. It will benefit millions of people in Britain.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I, too, will not detain the Committee longer than necessary. I want to correct the record from this morning. I referred to a small cartoon as being from The Spectator when it was in fact in the New Statesman. All those aspersions about what I was reading late last night can now be cast aside. I have it here for anyone who wishes to see it. If anybody wishes to supply me with a copy of The Spectator , I might thumb through it as some point during the Committee and give my views on it some time in future.

We have to be clear from the start. We have been promoting amendments to probe the Government on their intentions in order to support the organisations that are concerned about the clause. However, in Government, we had far more ambitious plans for rural broadband than the current Government, with a back-stop date of 2018. We said that we would provide superfast broadband to every home by 2012. That was a far more ambitious plan than this Government have brought forward. It is important to put that on record.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Order. Given the interest shown by all parties in the forthcoming statement, the Committee is suspended and I shall resume the Chair at 4 o’clock.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Thank you, Mr Davies, for your forbearance in allowing us not just to vote on the motion about Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom, which I am pleased was passed by a massive majority of 321, but to hear the Leveson statement, which obviously is important.

I think I told the Committee that it was the New Statesman, not The Spectator. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has laid out all the issues that we wish to raise on clause 7 stand part. We may push that to a vote, unless the Minister can give us some assurances on our questions. In the interest of time and moving the Committee on, I shall sit down and allow others to contribute.

Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I know that it is unusual for the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister to speak, which is why I have swapped duties with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, so that I can talk about the issue. In my time on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, one of the key things we campaigned for was to get broadband rolled out across the entire country for residents, whether in our inner cities, in areas of outstanding natural beauty, in national parks, and everything else in between.

I agree with the clause, and it certainly should not be limited to the Government programme. The market is providing a substantial amount of the broadband that is needed. Examples were raised earlier about where things were being held up. I will point to a town in my own constituency, where BT applied last October for permission to get a cabinet somewhere, with registration starting on 5 January. After quite a lot of disagreements, the application was withdrawn in April. Permission was reapplied for in May, and eventually BT received permission on 18 July, some nine months after first trying to get planning permission. It is not just in AONBs where there are problems with trying to get broadband cabinets fitted. As we know, the evidence from Mrs Learmonth suggested that BT had had similar problems with more than 2,000 cabinets.

I welcome the earlier statements made from the Opposition Front Bench. Just last month, I noticed that on his website, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South welcomed the roll-out of superfast broadband. He said:

“It is great to see Edinburgh at the forefront of the new Digital age as BT roll out the fibre broadband network”.

As I have already indicated, sometimes there are problems with rolling out that network. I am sure that he does not want to stand in the way of his own residents in Edinburgh enjoying superfast broadband as quickly as possible.

Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady on welcoming the roll-out of superfast broadband. The Opposition emphasise again that we want broadband to be rolled out as quickly as possible, but we want it to be done properly. My constituency, given the kind of constituency it is, will have great superfast broadband because it is in an urban area. There is no direct comparison to be made with the stuff on my website about a constituency in Edinburgh.

Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Much as I love Felixstowe in my constituency, I cannot pretend that it is a rural town. It is very much an urban town, with the biggest container port in the country; it has certainly developed from its original roots. It was just an example of saying that even in our significant towns, there can be challenges stopping the deployment of fibre optics. It is a concern, and that is why I support the Government on the clause.

I recognise that the Opposition want to see broadband in the countryside. Over half of my constituency is in an AONB. I have sites of special scientific interest, Ramsar sites and special protection areas—frankly, if there is a designation, I have got it, apart from a national park. Meanwhile, we still have to manage deployment of infrastructure, such as nuclear power stations––two are due to be built soon. It is absolutely critical to our economic growth, because without growth, any development that we have is simply unsustainable. That is why I felt that the Opposition’s amendments were unnecessary. Frankly, the two have to go hand in hand.

There has been all sorts of talk about what is appropriate. Normally, broadband cabinets are green. I would love to see the cabinet that the hon. Member for City of Durham referred to. I am not very tall either, but I have not yet seen a cabinet taller than me. Certainly, most are green. We know that a code of practice that will cover the local area will be taken into account. I appreciate that we are not just talking about green woodland or green fields.

BT’s R and D headquarters is in Martlesham, in my constituency. People who work there live in the AONB. I do not foresee the employees of one of the major companies that will be deploying broadband around the country seeking to spoil the landscape where they live. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not aware of any examples suggested of BT—or indeed Virgin Media, or any other cable provider—putting forward something so inappropriate. Without economic growth, areas will effectively die.

The other reason why broadband in rural areas is particularly important is quality of life. It is not solely about improving business. It is also about improving people’s access to television. We do not have proper transmitters in my part of the world. Everybody else, after the digital switchover, managed to get all sorts of channels, but most people in Suffolk Coastal and the neighbouring constituency managed to get only 15 channels, two of which were Gay Rabbit and Rabbit, which were not exactly wanted. However, the additional communications that come through allowed more residents to switch to internet TV and therefore enjoy the same channels that everyone else receives when they pay exactly the same licence fee. I am not going to start a debate on the licence fee, but considering we receive only about a quarter of the channels that other people do, it could be argued that we should only pay a quarter of the licence fee.

The point has already been made—I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic—that the Government are consulting solely on the fixed line broadband roll out. It is right that they are doing so. After the successful clearance of the state aid hurdle that was undertaken in recent weeks by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who built on the good work of her civil servants and her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), a county council such as mine, Suffolk, is ready to sign the contract soon. We hope to have people digging the ground in the next few months. It is right that the Government are focusing on fixed-line broadband.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

As the hon. Lady has returned to the issue of broadband, I have with me a picture that shows the size of a broadband cabinet in relation to a rather tall gentleman. She will see that it is, indeed, taller than he is. Does she accept that the clause allows for overhead cabling as well as for cabinets?

Therese Coffey (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

That may well be the case. My understanding is that Virgin Media, for its broadband deployment, wants to use its technology along existing overhead lines, so that it can put fibre into the home, whereas the BT solution is still to rely on fibre to a cabinet, then use either wireless or existing copper lines to ensure that people get broadband. We know that fibre to the house provides the superior experience. I do not see any particular issue there. I am not aware of any plans of the existing operators to erect more overhead lines to deploy fixed broadband. BT has never mentioned that to me in briefings.

On the issue of quality of life, I have been talking about TV, but one of the things that is coming up is the 4G auction. It is right that the Government are not making provision for that at this time in its consultation or its statutory instrument, but I hope that they will think ahead, and I have pressed this case. One of the things that 4G mobile broadband will bring to rural areas is liberation for public services. Instead of having to return to bases that may be an hour’s drive away, it will be a great change to be able to work on the go. That will improve services for our residents. Given that Parliament has pressed for 98% coverage of 4G, at some point in the future—probably in 18 months’ time—it would be right for the winning bidder to be able to come to the Government and say, “This is our deployment plan. Help us achieve it.” I am sure the Opposition would welcome constructive talks on that. Indeed, those were referred to when the announcement was made on 7 September 2012.

I have had representations from Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB about its concerns on why it sees the measure as the Government potentially opening the door to other changes coming through. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, is absolutely passionate in his love of the English countryside. He wants to see sensitive, appropriate development where existing brownfield sites may not be the solely suitable place for development. I am sure he is not proposing getting rid of the green belt or AONBs, so I am more than persuaded and fully endorse the Government’s approach.

The Government are made up of constituency MPs who have AONBs and national parks in their constituencies. I know no Government Members more passionate about defending the quality of life in their constituency. I support the clause.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The Chair is always right, but you, Mr Davies, were certainly right to allow a clause stand part debate. We have had a good and honest debate. There is clearly a division of opinion in Committee about the merits of the clause, but it is important to explore all the different areas. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis and for Suffolk Coastal for their contributions, and I also thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South.

I want to go back to the points made at the beginning by the hon. Member for City of Durham. She told us—I wrote it down, but I stand corrected if I am wrong—that local authorities were actively facilitating the roll-out of broadband. I am afraid that is simply not the case in many parts of the country. It certainly is not the case in the northern national parks where broadband coverage, as I have said to the Committee before, is extremely poor at less than 30%. If like me, the hon. Lady wants more visitors to the parks, how do people book their visits and their hotels and bed and breakfasts? Such enterprises require broadband coverage.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The examples I gave were from national park authorities.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Indeed. That is where we want to see faster roll-out of broadband. The hon. Lady asked me about two specific points that I want to reply to. First, she asked why we have gone back on the commitment we made in the November 2011 consultation on overhead lines. The answer is simple. We have listened to the consultation. The responses showed that the proposed approach in the document would not work. It would be too costly and too onerous and it would have meant that more rural and remote areas would simply not have been served commercially.

Secondly, the hon. Lady suggested—I think inadvertently—that BT had not provided evidence to the Committee, but it provided written evidence. I can share one conclusion of that evidence, which is in front of the Committee. Under the current planning regime and deployment under current rules, BT stated:

“The net impact of this is that hundreds of thousands of customers will be at risk of being excluded from high-speed broadband services where planning constraints prevent deployment.”

That is exactly what the Bill seeks to address.

The hon. Lady then got into fantasy territory. There was talk of people tripping over cabinets, banging their heads on overhead wires and not being able to see views of Snowdon or whatever. I cannot accept that the clause will result in any significant degradation of the countryside. It is not a free-for-all; there will be consultation and a code on siting practices. Local authorities, particularly those involved in the Government side of the roll-out, will be in a powerful position, because they will be doing the procurement and will be able to negotiate with individual providers.

Clause 7 contains an enabling power that allows secondary legislation in the form of the electronic communications code to be amended to contribute to delivery of the proposed relaxation of planning controls to speed up the deployment of fixed broadband. To support the power to make those regulations, clause 7 disapplies, as we have heard, the duties in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty legislation to have regard to environmental considerations, which simply aligns the legislation with the Communications Act 2003, as amended.

Several concerns have been raised, but as I have set out to the Committee and as the Committee heard when we took evidence, the need to provide broadband to people in areas that are not covered at the moment, and who would not otherwise be covered if we did not relax the planning controls, is real, and the benefit to local economies is clear. We are proposing to relax planning requirements for five years to allow street cabinets and new poles to be deployed without the need for prior approval everywhere except in sites of special scientific interest. Relaxing those controls will provide certainty for providers looking to invest, as well as reducing the cost of deployment, which is key given that up to 80% of the costs of rolling out superfast broadband are in the civil works. We do not believe that those changes will lead to a proliferation of overhead cables, as providers will be expected to explore sharing existing infrastructure before deploying new poles. Local authorities will also have the power, as I have said, to influence how services are deployed in consultation with the supplier when they are procuring projects under the Broadband Delivery UK programme.

We will be publishing the consultation before Christmas, detailing our plans for relaxing the requirements for broadband cabinet and new pole deployment in protected areas. It will be clear from that document that we do not intend to alter the existing statutory obligation for providers to consult local authorities on the siting of their apparatus and to minimise any impact. The providers are committed to working with other stakeholders, such as the LGA and the Planning Officers Society, to develop a code of best siting practice to assuage some of the concerns about whether our proposals would result in any kind of free-for-all. There will be no such thing, but we believe that action is necessary to ensure that we have a communications infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century, which will enable all parts of the country to grow and will allow as many households as possible to benefit from superfast broadband. That is why we need clause 7. If the hon. Lady wants to delete it, I urge my hon. Friends to support it.

Clause 8 - Periodic review of mineral planning permissions

Nicholas Boles (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies.

Minerals are essential to our quality of life and to deliver the homes, roads and other infrastructure that this country needs. Yet we also recognise that mineral extraction can have an adverse effect on the environment and that that impact will change over the lifetime of extraction on a site. Clause 8 gives effect to schedule 3, which will allow mineral planning authorities in England greater direction as to whether to undertake a periodic review of the minerals permissions of sites in their areas and when. The measure will free mineral planning authorities from centrally set requirements, while potentially reducing the financial burden on the industry and on local authorities without any loss of environmental protection.

Clause 8 contains transitional provisions to make it clear that the changes to the review regime will apply to mineral permissions granted before the coming into force of schedule 3, but where a mineral planning authority has already served notice of a review, that review must be completed. The proposal is designed to help the current regime work better and more flexibly, so that reviews only take place when they are genuinely necessary. That is in line with our efforts to ensure that the planning system is simpler and faster while remaining effective.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

As the Minister pointed out, the clause deals with changes to the mineral planning regime to ensure that mineral planning authorities have more discretion over when permissions are reviewed. As the local planning authority will act as the mineral planning authority in a relevant application, it is good to see that there is at least one clause in the Bill that trusts the discretion of local authorities. It is hardly a huge step for localism, but it may be beneficial to local authorities to have more flexibility when they a review mineral planning permission.

Clause 9 - Stopping up and diversion of highways

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The clause amends section 253 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It enables applications for a highway stopping-up or diversion order to be processed in parallel with the application for planning permission. Stopping-up orders are a form of non-planning consent, which are made to close or divert a road for development purposes. Once a stopping-up order is made, the carriageway and/or footway concerned ceases to be public highway and may be built on.

The clause removes the delay for a developer in getting on the ground after he or she has obtained planning permission, because currently only then can they start the application process to stop up or divert the affected highways. The developer will make stopping-up applications to the Department for Transport as now. The normal objection process will remain, and even after a planning application has received approval, the final highway stopping-up or diversion order will not be formally made until the planning permission has been granted. Work therefore cannot start on the highway until a stopping-up order has been made.

The clause enables but does not require developers to apply for a highway stopping-up or diversion order at the same time as they apply for planning permission. The clause is a deregulatory measure. The concurrent procedure for both applications will mean that developers make a valuable time saving of some weeks, especially where there are no outstanding objections to the stopping-up order.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The Opposition feel that clauses 9 to 11 are uncontentious. They implement some of the recommendations of the Penfold review, and we support them.

Clause 10 - Stopping up and diversion of public paths

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The clause, similarly to clause 9, deals with the stopping up and diversion of public paths. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables an authority with the power to grant planning permission to make a legal order to stop up and divert a public right of way if that is necessary to enable development to be carried out. Section 257 of the Act is the provision that enables the authority to do so, but it is framed in such a way that, currently, the authority can only make a rights of way order after planning permission has been granted.

Clause 10 therefore amends section 257 of the 1990 Act to enable the authority to make a rights of way order where it is satisfied that an application for planning permission has been made and that should that application be granted, it will be necessary to stop up or divert the right of way in order for the development to be carried out. The measure will enable the rights of way order to be considered alongside the planning application, instead of having to wait until after planning permission has been granted.

Clause 11 - Declarations negativing intention to dedicate way as highway

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

The Highways Act 1980 contains a mechanism whereby long use of a way may result in its deemed dedication by the landowner as a highway or right of way. The Act allows a landowner to come to such dedication by the deposit of a map and statement showing admitted highways, followed by a declaration that that landowner has no intention to dedicate any other part of the land as a public right of way. The provisions enable landowners to protect themselves against claims for public rights of way. They also enable landowners to allow people to use their land on a permissive basis, without the need for a formal agreement, and without the fear that such use could give rise to a public right of way. Good use is made of the provisions, and landowners consider them a valuable and effective mechanism.

Clause 11 amends the Highways Act to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the form of such statements, maps and declarations, including provision for a statement or declaration under the Act to be combined with a statement made to counter town and village green registration, which clause 12 will introduce. The aim, therefore, is simply to minimise the administrative burden on landowners who wish to make statements both for highways purposes and for town and village green purposes. We want to ensure that the processes for rights of way and for town and village greens are as joined up and consistent as possible. We hope that will encourage landowners to allow access to their land without being concerned about either rights of way dedications or town and village green applications.

Clause 12 - Registration of town or village green: statement by owner

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 12, page 14, line 15, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 95, in clause 12, page 14, line 27, at end insert—

‘(e) for publicising the deposit of a statement under subsection (1) in the local area.’.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Clause 12 allows a landowner to deposit a statement with the commons registration authority, providing a fairly pain-free way of ending the recognition of lawful recreation taking place on the land, thus allowing the possibility that the land could be registered as a town or village green. Amendment 94 would instead require the landowner to deposit a statement with the commons registration authority in order to bring an end to lawful recreation; amendment 95 would require the landowner to publicise the fact that he or she has deposited such a statement. Following that, under the Commons Act 2006, the local community would have a two-year grace period in which to register the land as a town or village green.

The CPRE and the Open Spaces Society support the amendments. The Open Spaces Society has said:

“If the inhabitants are unaware of the deposit of the statement they will not be on notice that time has started to run and, after two years, their right to register will be lost. Paragraph 62 of the explanatory notes to the bill makes clear that there is no intention to deprive local inhabitants of the right to seek to register but that becomes meaningless if the inhabitants have no idea that the time has begun to run against them…The OSS regards it as imperative that the cessation is brought to the attention of local inhabitants at the same time as the statement is deposited with the registration authority. How it is done is a matter for discussion, but we believe that it would require, as a minimum, the erection of signs on the land and an advertisement in a local paper, advising of the deposit of the statement and of the two-year period.”

That seems to be highly logical. It is localist, sensible and encourages problems to be aired as soon as possible, which will limit the expense incurred by developers and landowners.

Amendment 95 would not make it easier for a piece of land to be registered following the grant funding application, nor would it enable vexatious applications of the type that we all want to stop, as those could be addressed with some of the triggers in schedule 4. It would, however, give communities a chance to protect land that otherwise they may lose. That is particularly important given that consultation on neighbourhood and local plans often leaves much to be desired. In many instances, a community will not know that a consultation is—or was—taking place. Therefore, to say that that is the only stage at which land can be safeguarded is overly idealistic and would necessitate a huge improvement in the consultation process that we have not seen to date, and which the Government do not appear to have considered.

That is not to say that it is not possible. I am a fervent believer in local and neighbourhood planning, but so far the Government have failed to set out funding for neighbourhood planning forums beyond those included in the front-runner programme and no long-term resource plan has been proposed.

At the same time, the cuts to planning departments hamper planning officers’ ability to engage with the local community, which will increase the chances that the identification of community assets and designation of areas for local green space could be flawed.

I urge the Minister to consider seriously the amendments and to take on board the points on giving local communities a reasonable period in which to register their interest. I hope that he will accept the amendments.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I was disappointed to hear the hon. Lady make that case and, in particular, the way in which she dismissed the provisions in the Localism Act 2011 and the neighbourhood planning system. It is rather unlikely that somebody who lives in a neighbourhood that has a neighbourhood plan would be unaware that that was happening, because there has to be a referendum of all residents. Even if the turnout is low, at least everybody should know that the referendum is happening. I think—

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I might just finish my sentence. There is now a much better system in place for giving residents in a neighbourhood the opportunity both to register open spaces of value to them and to participate in a meaningful planning process, rather than one that was dropped on them.

The hon. Lady and I shared the experience of long hours in the Localism Bill Committee, in which we debated these matters, so I am disappointed that she did not find that a useful learning experience. More than 250 neighbourhood plans are under preparation, and she should have a little more faith in local communities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods rose—

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady. I apologise for not doing so earlier.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Much as I would have loved to have sat on the Localism Bill Committee, alas, I did not because at that time I had a different shadow ministerial position. I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on a second point: there will not be a referendum on a neighbourhood plan unless the neighbourhood planning forum decides to have a neighbourhood development order, and it may not necessarily decide to do that. My understanding is that, to date, no referendums have been held.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I very much apologise for mistakenly attributing membership of the Localism Bill Committee to the hon. Lady. She missed a treat. Had she been there she would have heard a lot more about how the neighbourhood planning system is intended to work and how it is working. She would have heard about the provision that there is for neighbourhoods and individuals to register open spaces of local significance in their area with their local authority and for those to be incorporated in the local plan and subsequently in the neighbourhood plan.

The provisions are necessary to tidy up a part of the law that has been on the statute book for a very long time and has taken on completely new uses in the hands of community campaigners. The Localism Act provides a much more sensible and measured way of going out about getting what we can call village greens, but which the Act refers to as open spaces of “local significance”, recognised and incorporated into plans in a measured way that does not prove disruptive.

I draw the Committee’s attention to some of the evidence that we received on this point. I do not usually pray in aid the Law Society, but I notice that it says it welcomes the provision enabling landowners to make a statement about their land and supports placing restrictions on the circumstances in which applications for registering land can be made. That is lawyers speaking so that is rather contrary to the usual way of things where lawyers like complex legal procedures with plenty of opportunities to earn fees.

I also draw attention to the evidence we received from the Local Government Association on the registration of town and village greens. I notice that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South has been happy to pray in aid what he has described as the Conservative-led LGA time after time. The last time he mentioned it he said that it was all-party. Indeed, it represents local authorities of all political stripes in England. Paragraph 27 of its evidence states:

“The LGA welcomes the measures to align the town and village green regime with the planning system. This will ensure that discussions about the future of a site take place primarily and appropriately through the planning system.”

Paragraph 28 states:

“Town and village green legislation is too often used by opponents of particular schemes to block or stall development.

It is quite right that local communities should be able to safeguard community land that is of value to them. I would say to the Committee that that is precisely the mechanism that is in place with the Localism Act.

The National Housing Federation perhaps got to the heart of our problem. It said:

“However the existing town and village green legislation is poorly drafted and has too often been abused by people opposing developments.”

It is interesting that, apparently, what the hon. Lady’s amendment would do—she may want to clarify this—is give an extended period of time for local communities to carry on using this poorly drafted scheme instead of engaging in neighbourhood planning and instead of approaching their local authority and getting their open space of local significance listed as it should be.

We received evidence from the Hastoe Housing Association, a specialist rural housing association which owns about 5,000 homes and works in partnership with more than 200 village communities. It said:

“It is, and will remain, very simple to register land as a village green. Defra and a range of organisations such as the Open Space Society are constantly promoting the importance of registering village greens and providing advice and support.”

Interestingly it supplied us with figures which showed just how many applications for village greens had been made over the years. I will just quote the figures given in its evidence for the first nine months of 2011. In that time, 84 applications on village greens were determined, of which 57 were rejected and 27 approved. In other words, almost two thirds of the applications were what we might best describe as spurious.

The housing association goes on to give us some evidence of the costs that have arisen as a result. It has quoted particular schemes, indicated the length of delay that has arisen and given the estimated cost. Not all the items have a full address, but I notice that a scheme in Gloucestershire was delayed for two years at a cost of £70,000, a scheme in Wakefield was delayed for two years at a cost of £10,000 and a scheme in Maldon, Essex has been ongoing since June 2011 and has an estimated cost so far of £1.2 million. Those are really significant sums of money, but also very significant lengths of time taken over this procedure.

The figures are in the evidence that Hastoe Housing Association has given, and, if approximately two thirds of the applications turn out to be spurious, it is surely right for the Bill to introduce proposals that simplify and rectify that. In the open spaces requirement in the Localism Act 2011, we have in place a good new mechanism that goes wider than village greens. Given that and the additional capacity that there is for neighbourhood plans, I believe that the hon. Lady’s attempt to stretch the existing provision and delay its removal from the statute book is mistaken. I hope that she will listen to the force of the arguments that other members of the Committee will make, and that I am sure the Minister will make, and, when the moment is right, withdraw her amendment.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is important that we are clear that there is a lot of agreement among Committee members. We have heard evidence about the need to ensure that vexatious applications for town and village greens do not get in the way of progress, and we welcome the thrust of the Localism Act. I had the privilege of serving on the Localism Bill Committee with the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove, so perhaps I was mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I have since got some new glasses.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I welcome that intervention, and the ability to see the world so much more clearly that the right hon. Gentleman now has.

On town and village green registrations, the issue is not the desire to bring things in line with the planning process and the new processes that the Localism Act has released. Rather, it is about recognising a way of doing that which does not disempower and disadvantage local communities. Although we heard evidence from a number of agencies about the “vexatious” concern, we also heard a considerable degree of evidence from organisations and individuals concerned about losing the opportunity for proper town and village green registration.

The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove may want to educate, for example, the Maidstone borough council Liberal Democrat group, which contacted us and said that it

“cannot support the proposals to limit the right to register land as a Village Green. This appears to be a solution in search of a problem and conflicts strongly with the stance on community assets taken by the Government in the Localism Act. At the very least the prohibition on registering land which has been included in a draft local or neighbourhood plan should be removed as this undermines part of the very rationale for developing and consulting on a local or neighbourhood plan in the first place.”

It is important to recognise that organisations that are close to the ground, such as the Maidstone Liberal Democrats, have genuine concerns about how the intention of the clause is drafted. There is an opportunity to address that through the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, which does not alter the direction of travel, but gives protection to local communities. Sylvia Mason from Amber Valley says that the proposed changes to the process of village green applications on land already earmarked for building is another major setback for democracy. She goes on to say that this is

“top down decision-making—and runs counter to… the British way of life.”

Those are genuine concerns by genuine people who are involved in their localities.

Finally, let me refer to the evidence from Pauline Bradley in relation to the situation in Pucklechurch. She says:

“The villagers I have spoken to were not aware of the intention of the local council to put forward planning proposals (again) on the land in question prior to the posting of notices on the lamp posts and through a few letterboxes.”

In a sense, she gets to the nub of the problem. Unless we advertise and draw attention to registration, neighbourhoods and individuals are not aware of it until it starts happening. When it starts happening, they knock on the doors of people and say, “What can we do about it?” Then they are told, “Well, actually, this was registered two, four, five years ago and you should have noticed what was going on then and done something about it.” My hon. Friend’s amendment provides protection for everybody by ensuring that proper advertising takes place at the point of registration, so that communities are alerted at the proper time. Two years is not too long a period, and it allows communities to exercise a desire if they so wish. That is not vexatious, but a proper and true way of improving the clause. Although the clause has been introduced for the very best of reasons, it could appear centralist without the localist flavour offered by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

All three Members who have spoken have indicated their support for the change that is being made in clause 12, and their more general support for the proposal to align the town and village green legislation with the planning system more generally. The case for that was set out superbly by the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who deployed the broad arguments in favour of the clause far more eloquently than I could or indeed was going to try to do on clause stand part.

On the specific amendments that have been put before us, amendment 94 would require rather than permit regulations to be made on the issues that are set out in new section 15A of the Commons Act 2006. That includes how town and village green landowner statements and maps are provided and combined with Highways Act 1980 statements.

Amendment 95 adds that regulations also cover publicising and depositing a statement in the local area. In combination, the two amendments would require a statement to be publicised. I understand from what has been said that a key purpose behind the amendments may be to ensure that when a landowner makes a statement, notice is given to local people so that they are aware that the clock is ticking in terms of the period of time they have if they want to make a town and village green application, and I want to offer the Committee some reassurance on that. When a landowner statement is deposited with a Commons Registration Authority, we intend that that authority will be required to publicise it so that local people are made aware of the fact that a statement has been deposited. Indeed, subsection (6) immediately preceding the subsection that the hon. Lady is seeking to amend provides us with the power to make regulations to cover the steps that an authority must take, which include publicising statements in the way that she wants. Notice requirements are likely to include publication on the website of the Association of Commons Registration Authorities, as well as notification by e-mail of interested parties. Amendment 95 would, therefore, duplicate the provision under subsection (6), and it is our view that the publication requirements are best set out in the regulations under that subsection.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I find the Minister’s comments somewhat reassuring, but will he confirm that there will be something in the registration system and in the terms of the consultation that will alert local people to the fact that something that relates to their areas has been deposited? Will they then have a period in which to register an interest in the village green?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I can reassure the hon. Lady on both those matters. The whole point of notification is precisely as she described. It is not simply the sending of a notice, but to alert people to the beginning of the time period. That is the critical point. I hope that she will also accept that the regulations will make the whole process of submitting a landowner statement as easy as possible for landowners. It means that they can combine statements for town and village green purposes with those that are made for rights of way. The whole object of such a measure is to make sure that, as far as possible, we encourage landowners to allow recreational use of their land safe in the knowledge that they can, when necessary, prevent the registration of their land from being registered as a town or village green. Given my reassurances, I hope that she is persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

As I said, I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s comments and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Clauses 12, 13 and 14 will reform the system for registering new town and village greens, and it might be helpful if I set out the broader context of such provisions. The rising number of town and village green applications, which are free to applicants, is resulting in large costs to local authorities. When applications affect development, the town and village green registration system can undermine the democratically accountable planning process. Many applications fail in the end, but they nevertheless incur long delays, uncertainty and costs to local authorities and landowners. Some people, as the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove reminded the Committee, use the process simply to prevent or delay development that is needed and wanted by the wider community.

The key aims of the reforms are three: first, to prevent the registration system from being used to stop or delay planning development and to protect the ability of communities to promote development in their area through local and neighbourhood plan-making; secondly, to reduce the financial burden on local authorities in considering applications and the cost to landowners whose land is affected by those applications; and, thirdly, to remove unnecessary uncertainty and delays that are difficult for those affected in the community.

Applications can be made under section 15(1) of the Commons Act 2006 to register land as a town and village green. The criteria are that the land has been used, as of right, for lawful sports and pastimes by a significant number of local inhabitants for at least 20 years. The law on town and village greens is based on custom and assumes that, if a landowner did not challenge any recreational use of the land for over 20 years, he actually intended that local people use the land, so the registration of the land is therefore legal recognition of the right that they have established.

Among others, the Local Government Association, both in written evidence and in its appearance before the Committee, has been very supportive of the three clauses. As the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, the association described the clauses as

“essential to align the town and village green regime with the planning system.”

These clauses, it said, will ensure that false claims are revealed swiftly, while genuine claims receive fair and robust consideration, and the primacy of the local plan is maintained. I could not have put that better myself, and I urge the Committee to support the clauses.

Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)

Can the Minister clarify one point that, despite the LGA’s submission, may be contentious? It is that much of the land that is often subject to challenge is owned by the local authority in the first place, and there can be problems in relation to local people then seeking to register that land for the purposes of sporting or recreational use when the local authority intend to sell it for development use. Can he clarify what the position will be under this legislation once it is passed?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

That is something that I am afraid I am not able to clarify immediately. At a later stage, I may be able to get back to my hon. Friend on that technical point about what happens when the local authority owns the land. I think that I have indicated the general arguments in favour of this set of clauses. I hope that clause 12 can now receive the approval of the Committee.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I have a few comments to make about clause 12.

We find it strange that this clause is included in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, especially as the Campaign to Protect Rural England has pointed out that there were only 185 applications for town and village green status last year, and that only a portion of those would be ruled out by the changes set out in the clause. The number of extra developments that would be brought forward as a result may be minimal. My question about the clause is whether it is really the central legislative priority for a Government in the midst of an economic crisis, when they could be taking much wider and much more sweeping steps to support economic recovery.

I know that the Minister said in our last meeting that he does not mind introducing clauses that may end up being useless; he is unconcerned about wasting the Committee’s time. However, has he considered that the taxpayers, who he rightly points out keep us in this place, may prefer that he introduce some real growth measures for us to debate?

It is manifestly important that we ensure that vexatious applications do not stymie development, and a small number of examples have been put forward by the LGA to show that such applications are a problem. However, there have also been a number of protections of land that were not vexatious and that have been done in the spirit of the Commons Act 2006. That Act intended to protect land that was valued and precious to local communities, and over quite a long period of time.

As we have said before in this Committee, the purpose of planning is to balance competing interests. I am not exactly sure that the clause has got the balance completely right, and we will perhaps reflect on that matter again. We want to ensure that development can take place, but we also want to ensure that those very precious areas for local communities can be registered in a timely and efficient manner.

Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)

On this particular point, it is important to recognise the evidence of the Woodland Trust, the CPRE and a number of other agencies that are very concerned about the direction of travel without proper protections. In my own constituency, the Ashby Pond group has an issue exactly like the one that the hon. Member for Harrow East alluded to. There is an area of land in local government control that some want to see developed even though it has been used for recreation for many years. I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the hon. Gentleman, because the issue that he raised is not merely theoretical but a very practical and true one.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

A couple of points have been made. I am sorry that the hon. Member for City of Durham has been so sniffy about the clause. Nobody is claiming that clauses 12, 13 and 14 will, in themselves, accelerate GDP or drive forward the economic recovery that we all want. I notice, in passing, that neither she nor her party has made any other proposals that might contribute to the growth of the economy. Equally, nobody has said that any of these clauses have no effect. Taken together, we hope they will provide a better balance in the system and encourage development that is wanted by local communities to go ahead.

I turn finally to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and repeated by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe about what happens to land that is owned by the local authority if it wants to sell it. I assure the Committee that local authority land is captured by town or village green legislation in exactly the same way as any other land. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend and the rest of the Committee.

I hope that, despite some of the reservations expressed about this change, the Committee will support clause 12.