Planning Bill

Sorry. It sounds as if my hon. Friend has had a number of constituency experiences that exactly reflect the sort of point I was trying to make. I cannot help but feel that the IPC cuts fiercely against the grain of what a democratically accountable and responsive planning process should be. Anybody wielding the immense powers that are to be allocated to the IPC must be democratically accountable and allow proper public engagement by allowing for robust testing of evidence. The Bill does not appear to make any real provision for this. I would have no objection—I am echoing the points made by a number of Members—to an expert body having a major independent advisory role, but not a decision-making role. It has been suggested that this role might be allocated to the Planning Inspectorate rather than creating the IPC. I can understand the attraction to Ministers of insulating themselves against the pressures of taking decisions on what are often highly charged political issues. It is a little like the process that the Conservative party is considering in terms of distancing itself from unpopular local decisions in the NHS, if it ever manages to get into government. I doubt whether that will work and I am not sure that the IPC will work as a similar barrier. Finally on democracy and public engagement, may I express my objection to what could be viewed as retrospective policy formulation, a point made effectively by Opposition Members? I am concerned that clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to designate existing policy documents as national policy statements. Obviously some of these documents pre-date the more robust sustainability assessments that have come into force more recently. Previous policy documents were not designed to take into account recent statutory targets, such as the carbon emission reductions that we will look at in due course. The best example has already been quoted—the ““Future of Air Transport”” White Paper 2003, which was obviously published before there was a requirement to comply with either the strategic environmental assessment directive or the habitats directive. The Department for Transport has already indicated that the air transport White Paper will form the basis of an NPS on airport developments—something I do not feel I could possibly support. This approach also negates the principle that any consultation exercise must be clear on the effects of the proposals being consulted upon. Designating an existing policy document as a national policy statement would afford it a far greater status in the planning system than the public could reasonably have assumed at the time of the original consultation, a time when the idea of national policy statements was not even a twinkle in the Secretary of State's eye. Finally, I wish to outline some of my concerns about how the Bill relates to climate change. Ministers have said that one justification for the Bill is that it will create a structure that speeds up the shift to renewable and lower-carbon energy and supports development of low and zero-carbon building. The fear I have is that it could equally create a structure that allows other applications that are far less positive in these terms to go ahead. I am certain that Members on both sides share my view that every relevant policy and Bill that passes through this House must have climate change printed through it, like a stick of rock. It feels that it is simply scribbled on the surface of the Bill. I welcome the proposal that a sustainable development duty be placed on Ministers in preparing national policy statements, but that needs to be strengthened in order to be convincing and fully effective. The IPC should also have a sustainable development duty that would require it to operate in line with the UK's climate change objectives. The Bill should also provide for the monitoring and reporting of that duty by Ministers and by the IPC. I also support the proposal that the independent committee on climate change that features in the Climate Change Bill should be a statutory consultee in the NPS process and in specific applications being considered by the IPC. My time has run out, so I end by saying that I really look forward to the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), assuring me that the Bill is not the retrograde step I fear. But as it stands at the moment, I would have great difficulty in supporting it in its entirety.