Clause 1
Planning and Energy Bill
9:15 am
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I explain what we propose to do. I shall be asking hon. Members to vote against clause 1, and to vote in favour of new clause 1 and the amendments grouped with it. That is because I have been advised by the House authorities that, instead of tabling a whole series of amendments, it would be more appropriate to table such proposals as one new clause. Sadly, but inevitably, the new clause is longer than my original clause, which the House considered on Second Reading.
It is only right to say that new clause 1 reflects the intensive discussions that have taken place between the Department and myself, and other parties. I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister and her officials for the extremely helpful and constructive meetings that we have had since we discussed the Bill on Second Reading. I particularly appreciate also the assistance of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who has a long-standing interest in such matters and who assisted me at one of the meetings.
I draw the Committee’s attention to two main aspects of new clause 1. Subsection (1) is similar to the original clause 1, but with one significant improvement. The potential specification is widened to include near-site sources as well as off-site sources. That significant gap in the Bill’s drafting was well articulated by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Iain Wright), in his speech on Second Reading. He certainly convinced me that it needed improvement. We have therefore replaced the original words
“as part of the...development”
with
“in the locality of the development”.
I want to make it clear to the Committee that “in the locality of” includes both on-site and near-site; it is certainly not an invitation to developers to prioritise near-site over on-site. It includes both.
The second improvement to clause 1 is made under subsections (5) and (6) of new clause 1, which ensure that new development policies must not be inconsistent with national policies. I thought originally that it would be possible to say that such policies must have regard to national policies, but I am assured that that would not have enabled us, for example, to have excluded remote sources and might otherwise have led the Bill into inconsistency with other national policies such as the right of consumers to choose their energy supply through a competitive market and the right of the Government and all of us to encourage more affordable housing. Those are the two major improvements in new clause 1 over the original clause.
Amendment No. 2 is an improvement because the definition of development plan that I spelt out in the draft is simply not necessary. Amendment No. 3 is technical and would tidy up the definition under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Amendment No. 4 deals with Wales and would make it clear that that provision is better included in subsection (1). I hope that that explains the group that is before us. The procedure is slightly unusual because we want the amendments to be agreed to, but must first vote against clause 1. In due course, I will invite the Committee, if it so agrees, to vote against clause 1 standing part of the Bill.