Planning Bill

As we heard in our debate on the programme motion, we are working under considerable time constraints. We have another two groups of amendments to discuss in the next hour, so I shall not detain the House for long. I simply want to note that another whole area of authorities is being given to this unelected body, which will be able to take decisions on matters such as setting up a new harbour authority, for example. We have already discussed the IPC, the broad range of competencies and skills that its commissioners will need to have, and the information that they will have to contend with. While I suppose that it makes sense to have provisions that will enable development to be considered and put in place at the granting of a development consent order, this will mean that the IPC will have to get to grips with a whole new set of competencies. I am concerned about the organisation's ability to do these things adequately and properly within the necessary time scales. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) has already referred to a number of the problems arising from the new clauses. Perhaps I have misunderstood new clause 22—I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter—when it talks about section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. It seems to suggest that people who do not comply when consent is deemed to have been given without conditions will not be subject to enforcement mechanisms under clause 134 of the Bill. The Minister might wish to reflect on this point and to check whether my understanding is correct. I am concerned that there should not be any loosening of the strictures that would be placed on people under the existing legislation, to which the Bill refers, when bringing these matters under the remit of the IPC. Marine protection is a sensitive area, and there will shortly be a Bill to consider all those issues. I want to ensure that there will be no watering down of any conditions, and that enforcement will take place if any action taken under a DCO is questioned.