Clause 6
Planning Bill
2:30 pm
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 185, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, at beginning insert—
‘(A1) The Secretary of State shall consider continuously whether each national policy statement should be reviewed.
(A2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament and publish each year a report on the national policy statements which have been designated and whether a review is being carried out or will be carried out.’.
Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, after ‘must’, insert ‘continuously’.
No. 73, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out from ‘statement’ to end of line 32 and insert ‘annually and publish a report’.
No. 8, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out from ‘statement’ to end of line 32.
No. 74, in clause 10, page 5, line 24, at end add—
‘(4) The Secretary of State must report on the progress of the review at 28 day intervals.’.
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
We are moving on to some of the more arcane detail of bringing national policy statements into being. The clause deals with the review of the statements. The amendments would ensure that once a national policy statement is in place, it is fit for purpose whenever a new planning application emerges. Subsection 6(1) bothers me because it states:
“The Secretary of State must review each national policy statement whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. The problem is that
“whenever...appropriate to do so”
could be, and is likely to be, a reaction to a planning application. Any review process will, of necessity, take time. A continuous review and an annual report, which we are proposing, would allow the NPS to be always up to date.
Having said that, I should not like the Minister to think that we expect legions of civil servants to sit and read national policy statements and all the technical papers and advice involved in major infrastructure projects on a daily basis, but there ought to be a mechanism whereby technical literature and developments are under continuous review. That way, as soon as there is a new development that could have a bearing on an NPS, it would be flagged up to the Secretary of State and the review could begin at that stage rather than later.
Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)
I am listening to the hon. Lady and agree about the wording of the clause. I must say that the drafting is rather strange—I have not seen anything quite as strange as this for some time. [Interruption.] I read Private Eye and various other things.
The clause states:
“The Secretary of State must review each national policy statement whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”
We are always being told about words that are otiose. Surely the clause should state that the Secretary of State must review each NPS “periodically or from time to time”.
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that and I have some sympathy with him. I gave up reading Private Eye some years ago. Perhaps I should read it more often.
The problem with including a reference to a time scale as opposed to the process being continuous is that we never know when a technological development may emerge. If “from time to time” is defined as, say, once a year, given the technological fervour in areas such as waste disposal, that review may come after the technological development and the desire for an infrastructure contractor to build a new facility.
For example—it may not be entirely appropriate, but because it is current it comes immediately to mind—E.ON has made a planning application for a carbon capture, coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth as a response to a Treasury competition to design carbon capture facilities. Good on the Treasury for encouraging that research; I do not have any problem with it as long as it does not cost us any money—I put that in before I am accused of committing us to vast expenditure.
It is highly possible that a company would wish to make a planning application for a carbon capture power station but the NPS is not sufficiently up to date to allow the IPC to give it planning permission. That is why I have a problem with specifying a time scale and why I think that these matters should be kept under continuous review.
As I said, I do not suggest that we have a whole section, either in the Department for Communities and Local Government or anywhere else, reviewing the literature; it is not that difficult these days, especially with the internet. We all want clean technologies, sustainable development and better infrastructure, but in order to get innovative new ideas tried, tested and out into the public domain, it is better to keep things under continuous review. That is preferable to the Secretary of State suddenly waking up one Tuesday morning before coming in for questions and saying, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to look at the NPS for waste?” That is not a sufficiently robust system, but it is what will pertain under clause 6(1) as drafted. Heaven knows, in a couple of years we will have a new Secretary of State. With the best will in the world, reviewing NPS will not be at the forefront of any Secretary of State’s mind as he or she tries to deal with the mess that is left by this Government. [Interruption.] We are worrying about it and believe me, we need to worry.
If there is somebody in the Department whose remit it is to keep an eye on technological and other developments in these sectors, they can be flagged up continuously and that will allow the market to develop for the infrastructure projects that we want.
Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I, too, was somewhat alarmed by the concept of
“whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”
I understand why that would not be a cause for concern within the Department, but it might be a concern in the House. However, I will not go over the hon. Lady’s argument as we seem to be making progress.
I have a concern about NPSs being reviewed continuously. If an NPS is to mean something to people, they have to know that it is in place for a certain period. Amendment No. 73 suggests that they should be reviewed annually. That might be too short a period. However, if they are continuously being reviewed, that could call into question the whole purpose of having them because it could affect people’s confidence that they can submit an application in line with an NPS.
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
I am trying to make the NPS the servant of technology rather than technology the servant of the NPS.
Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of clarification. My feeling was that we should put a time limit on the NPS and my suggestion was to review it annually. Amendment No. 73 is a probing amendment.
Amendment No. 74 is on the related issue of an NPS being suspended. If something comes to light, as is set out in clause 10, which leads the Secretary of State to feel that an NPS should be suspended, it is not a trifling matter. There might be applications in the pipeline on which a great deal of expense and community anticipation are hanging. As the rest of the Bill seems to be quite fond of a period of 28 days for everybody else to conform to, I thought that the Secretary of State should have to answer after 28 days as to why a suspension remains in place. It might be slightly mischievous of me, but I felt that it would be useful for the Minister to clarify in what circumstances he envisages an NPS being suspended, how rare that might be and how soon it would be back in place or an amended NPS brought to the House for consideration. This issue is important because crucial applications could be before the IPC in that time.
David Jones (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
I support amendment No. 185. I also want to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. We learned our law within 25 miles of each other and I share his bemusement at the expression
“whenever the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to do so.”
I think that what is intended in the clause is probably very similar to what my hon. Friend intends in the amendment—in other words, the NPS should not be regarded as being cast in tablets of stone, but as being capable of development. The point is that things move forwards, especially technology. I am concerned that if statements are not kept under review, an application for development could be rejected because of a national policy statement that was developed on the basis of an old technology and does not accommodate the new technology.
It was not so long ago that the Government regarded nuclear power as an unattractive and unpalatable option. Now it is regarded as the solution to all our electricity generation problems. If the statement that it is an unpalatable option had been in the form of an NPS, it would not have been possible for a new developer to come forward with an application for a new nuclear power station, notwithstanding the fact that nuclear technology and nuclear waste disposal technology have moved on apace in recent years.
What the Government are seeking to achieve is very similar to what my hon. Friend is seeking to achieve. However, she puts it rather better, so I suggest that the Minister accepts the amendment.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe, Labour)
On amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be relieved to know that I do not intend to address each in turn at great length—
Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
Order. The hon. Gentleman refers to amendments that we are not considering. We are on amendments Nos. 185, 7, 73, 8 and 74. His amendments are to the next clause.
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
I sense a mood in the Committee to make progress.
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
I sense a mood, but do not see the evidence, Mr. Illsley, so I shall be brief.
I am not sure that the hon. Lady’s proposition is practical, but am sure that it is not sensible. The central question is why review when a review is not necessary. Surely, the time to review a national policy statement is when the relevant circumstances have changed, rather than to be required somehow to do so continually or when circumstances have not changed. As she rightly pointed out in her example, one circumstance that might allow for a review would be a significant development of technology.
Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
I think I shall finish my sentence and point first.
A development of science might be another example. For instance, if better science and analysis demonstrated that the environmental effects of a particular type of renewable technology were not as good as had been thought, that might change the substance and circumstances of an element of the national policy statement and suggest the need for review. To simply review for review’s sake or when there has been no significant change in circumstances is not a practical or sensible proposition.
Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
At the risk of getting into Sir Humphrey territory of reviewing reviews and announcing the review of the review, how will we know that a review is necessary unless a review has taken place? The Minister said that we will not conduct a review unless circumstances have changed. How will the Secretary of State be aware when significant circumstances have changed without having some sort of eye on what is happening in the sector and with applications?
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
The Secretary of State will have to consider from time to time whether a review is necessary. It is not only the Secretary of State, however, who is in a position to make a judgment on whether circumstances have changed to the extent that a review is necessary. Clause 12 gives any interested party the specific right to challenge the Secretary of State if they believe that those circumstances have changed and a review is necessary but the Secretary of State is not going to have one.
Mrs. Lait rose—
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
The Bill, therefore, provides the framework for dealing with precisely the sort of concerns that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Clwyd, West are right to anticipate. However, her amendments are not the answer to their concerns.
David Jones (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
Is not the problem with the subsection as drafted, however, that it is a strange mix of the mandatory and the discretionary? There is a positive duty on the Secretary of State to review national policy, but only when he feels that his state of digestion impels him to think about it. Frankly, ought not it to be mandatory all the way through? Currently, we have this strange compulsion, but only when the Secretary of State feels it necessary. Surely, it should be a question of periodic review. There need not necessarily be continuous reviews, but there certainly should be something that an aggrieved person can latch on to so that they can say, “Well, you should have reviewed it at that particular point but did not.”
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
Clause 12 is there precisely for an aggrieved person to, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, latch on to, but why review periodically when there is nothing to review? In the end, someone will have to make a judgment about initiating that review process. The national policy statements are produced as the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and it is appropriate that that responsibility and initiative lies with the Secretary of State. It is also appropriate for this House to take a view if the Secretary of State seems reluctant to have a review when there appears to be a change of circumstances that would warrant it. Any interested party could latch on, to use the hon. Gentleman’s words again, through the rights under clause 12 to impel or challenge precisely that process.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beckenham because she tried to intervene before. Then, if necessary, I will give way to others.
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
I hope that I am about to offer the Minister a solution to the problem.
English is a glorious and flexible language, and I do not have any problem with it becoming the international language. However, it is because of its very flexibility that I suspect we are using the word “review” in two distinct senses. I am using the word in the sense of keeping up to date—keeping a review of the technological and scientific literature. I suspect, if I may put words into the Minister’s mouth, that he is using the word in the more formal sense of setting out on a review of the NPS, with all the consultation that is required.
If we are agreed that we are using the word in slightly different senses, I am sure that we can come up with a wording that will both answer the Opposition’s concerns and deal with the Minister’s concern about the formal side of the review process.
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
I think that the hon. Lady is being half-helpful. Let me start with the good news. On the positive side, having spent five years in the Treasury, we did, indeed, use the word “review” often in the sense that she is suggesting. We, as a Government, keep all taxation policy constantly under review, which I think is the meaning that she intends. Clearly, in the context of the Bill and of potential revisions to national policy statements that have gone through the sort of formal process that we discussed under the previous clause, “review” has a different import.
Given that distinction, the hon. Lady must accept that it does not make sense to have a continual, or even a periodic, process of review. It makes sense to have a review when the circumstances that would suggest that it is necessary have changed. I do not think that it is necessary to try somehow to write into primary legislation an expectation or obligation that a Secretary of State would keep a close eye on all developments relevant to his or her policy area, including on national policy statements. It is part and parcel of the job that we do as Ministers, but, ultimately, as I have said, if a Secretary of State is failing to do that and is failing, therefore, to have the sort of formal review—let us call it that, although it is not the technical term used here—that either an interested party or Parliament might think the Secretary of State should have, there is scope to challenge that, and it would be appropriate to do so.
The Bill gets the balance right between a framework that can provide a degree of certainty for potential investors looking at major infrastructure options, and a degree of certainty about the framework within which the IPC works, against an expectation that they will be reviewed and revised when appropriate and when circumstances change.
I hope, given the mood in the Committee, that we can move on fairly swiftly, because there are substantial items still to discuss.
Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)
I do not agree with the Minister that the words “from time to time” would necessarily trigger a wasteful review. It would simply mean that the Minister would from time to time have to review. It does not mean that suddenly the doors would be opened to a review if it was not necessary. Quite the reverse.
I now understand why the wording,
“whenever the Secretary of State thinks it is appropriate to do so”,
has been included in clause 6—it is to open up the possibility of a legal challenge under clause 12. If the Secretary of State takes a conscious decision whether it is appropriate or not to undertake a review, that is challengeable under clause 12. I think that that is the reason for the rather extravagant wording.
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
I am not sure whether the wording is extravagant. However, the purpose of clause 12—let us say linked to clause 6, just to remain in order here—is to give an explicit right and scope for people to challenge the Secretary of State in conducting or discharging his or her duties under this Bill, whether that is to do with the production of a national policy statement, or a review, or a failure to review when circumstances warrant it.
I hope that that statement is helpful to the Committee and I hope that we can move on.
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
Given that the Minister and Conservative Members have been half-helpful to one another, I intend to withdraw the amendment—albeit on the grounds that we may well return to the issue—because the Minister has probably given us the answer that we need, which is the difference between review and revision. However, we may well come back to this in subsequent proceedings.
Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. However, I would still be grateful if he can provide any clarification on reporting back in the period when an NPS is suspended, so that people have an indication of what is likely to happen. That would be important to applications that are going on, and so on. I do not know whether he has anything to say on that.
John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)
I will try to be brief and helpful at the same time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to return to this issue in more detail when we debate clause 98.
Dan Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
On that basis, I am happy not press my amendments to a Division.
Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.