Planning Bill

This is the first group of a large number of Government amendments—they are overwhelmingly of a technical nature—that we have to consider. As we heard, the large number of amendments has taken those who served in Committee by surprise. The amendments are extensive, and for the most part they are significant. To a considerable extent, the amendments appear to address matters that should have been considered long before the Bill was published—certainly not later than the Committee sittings. In fact, some of the amendments amend amendments that were made in Committee. It is fairly obvious that amendments have been tabled as a result of pressure on the Minister from other Whitehall Departments, which have clearly been crawling all over the Bill, having their four pennies' worth. The most significant amendments, as the Minister said, are new clauses 9 and 10. By virtue of amendment No. 79, clause 20, which deals with nationally significant highway projects, is deleted altogether, while new clause 9 substitutes a definition of ““highway-related development””. New clause 9 is largely welcome, given that it appears to avoid the risk of small-scale highway projects falling within the definition of ““nationally significant infrastructure project””. Members of the Committee were concerned that including smaller scale projects could clog up the development consent system and so defeat the object of streamlining the consents process. The Local Government Association expressed the view that local authorities should continue to maintain their role on trunk roads, particularly the smaller and less used ones. It is therefore good that the Government have acknowledged the force of the arguments expressed in Committee and by the LGA, by effectively restricting the IPC procedure to major trunk road projects. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out in his intervention, it is notable that the development consent route is available only for roads wholly contained in England; Wales and Scotland are excluded, as are cross-border routes. The issue of cross-border routes is particularly contentious. The Government have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill—in fact, the Minister just reiterated this—that they are reluctant to disturb the devolution settlement. That is quite understandable. Nevertheless, it is hard to see why such an important Bill could not have been introduced with the co-operation and support of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Executive, so as to ensure that the streamlined development consent process, which the Government are so keen on, could apply to cross-border highway routes. The matter was raised in Committee. I had hoped that the Government would liaise with their colleagues in the devolved Administrations, to see whether it was possible to extend the development consent procedure to cross-border highways. As it is, consents relating to both ends of new cross-border routes will have to be considered under the existing disparate procedure. As I am sure the Minister will be well aware, that procedure has resulted in some cross-border routes not being completed as quickly as they should be. A prime example—I relate this with feeling—is the A5117 link road between the M56 and the A55 north Wales expressway. That route has taken an inordinately long time to complete; in fact, it is still in construction as I speak. If devolution is to work sensibly, there is no reason why the Government should not liaise with the devolved Administrations to see whether it is possible to bring uniformity to matters as important as those that we are considering today. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the opportunity was taken to liaise with the devolved Administration in respect of that matter and whether he feels that an opportunity was missed to improve cross-border road networks.