Planning Bill

I was about to move on to the text of our amendment. I am happy to accept, as the Minister pointed out, that the proposal would be a new and unique way forward, and I was about to congratulate him on the work that he and our Select Committee Chairman have done in developing a form of consideration of national policy statements that meets the Government's criteria. That suggests to me that it is not beyond the ability and skills in the House to create a formula for national policy statements to get full parliamentary approval. I am happy to admit that our amendment is not as detailed as the hon. Gentleman or the Minister might like, but the key for us is the principle that Parliament should own policy statements. That is the difference between us on the issue, and it is the reason I was less than complimentary about the programme motion. As a result of that, we have less time to deal with one of the more important issues than we had to deal with aspects that were important but uncontroversial. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us more answers on new clause 8. Although he set out clearly how he envisages it working and the agreement that has been reached so far with various bodies in the House, I am more than a little confused by new clause 8. We have had contradictory statements about how policy statements should be dealt with. Members who have taken an interest in the Bill will remember that the Secretary of State said on Second Reading on 10 December:"““If Parliament were to want to vote on those issues, that will be the right and proper course to take.””—[Official Report, 10 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 30.]" That is clear and it seems to chime with what we are suggesting. However, in the evidence sessions the Minister spoke mainly about scrutiny. On 10 January, in the first evidence-giving session, he said that"““that Select Committee, or the arrangements that Parliament puts in place, will have the scope, as closely as they wish and in the manner that they wish, to scrutinise and comment on the proposals, and we will then take them into consideration””.––[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 138.]" We had similar statements from him when we were debating clause 5 in Committee. He said that"““the Government will consider any reports or observations that such a Committee or such scrutiny provides together with the responses””.––[Official Report, Planning Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 251.]" There is a contradiction between what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading and what the Minister said in Committee. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) may well remember that when he moved an amendment in Committee very similar to the one that we had tabled, he withdrew it and I immediately took it up, because it conveyed the difficulty that we had. I congratulate him on his close and honourable interest in the Bill. We look forward to the debate next Monday. New clause 8 refers to the situation where"““either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal””." I have not been in the House as long as some Members, but I have been here for 15 or 16 years. To me, a resolution is not a very clear statement. A resolution implies a vote, but does that mean a resolution by a Select Committee, by the Chamber, or by the Quadripartite Select Committee? What precisely does ““a resolution”” mean in new clause 8? I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that. The Minister was clear about the form that he is now proposing for consultation. Those who sat through the Committee will remember that we could not establish whether the consultation would take place in parallel or in sequence. The Minister seems to have agreed to a system comprising a little of both. We can have a debate in Government time—but will it be in Westminster Hall, in Select Committee or on the Floor of the House? Will it be a topical debate? What sort of debate will it be? Will it be on the Adjournment, in which case it will provide us with nothing more than the opportunity to make known our points of view, which the Government may or may not take into account? That would mean that Parliament did not own the statement; in my view, however, that is the crucial thing. I have explained the principle behind my amendment. I am happy to admit that it is not perfect in any way, shape or form. However, I am sure that, with good will, we can work out how to address the issue properly. I accept that it will be difficult to get a national policy statement through the House. It will be difficult to get it through as a Government statement; it could be difficult to get through Parliament. However, if the British public do not feel that they own those statements—the planning policies that will affect their lives—we will find it more difficult, take a longer time and spend more money in the courts trying to establish the infrastructure that we all agree we desperately need. I suspect that one of the reasons the Government have set their hearts against the national policy statements being statements of Parliament is that that would immediately blow out of the water their argument about the Secretary of State's conflict of interest when it comes to the infrastructure planning commission, which is the basis of the statements' creation. I shall not go down the route of debating that commission, but I have given what I think is one of the reasons why the Government are so desperate to keep the national policy statements as Government statements. We have also tabled an amendment on what I took to mean the aviation White Paper. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others who have got further than the rest of us in getting clarification on the precise statement in respect of that White Paper. We had that debate in Committee. The status of the aviation policy was not entirely set out in black and white. I will look carefully tomorrow at what the Minister has said, but at this stage I think that we are as close as we will ever get to a statement that the current aviation White Paper will not be regarded as a national planning statement. If I have made a mistake, I apologise. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will be the first at the starting gate to ensure that the White Paper meets the criteria. Some of the national policy statements may be site-specific, hence there will be blight. It is a step forward that compensation should be paid to people affected by the statements. We need a bit more detail, but we are unlikely to get that at this stage; perhaps the other House will be more able to tease out how the system will work. I tabled our amendments on climate change to ensure that the issue was debated; I also welcome the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Again, we had the debate in Committee; the hon. Gentleman may have read the report. I am happy to admit that the use of the phrase ““sustainable development”” encompasses climate change. However, I tabled the amendments because there is still so much concern that climate change should be included specifically in the Bill that I thought it sensible to explore further what ““sustainable development”” encompasses in total, and to get assurances from the Minister that climate change was definitely part of it. I will listen with interest to the rest of the debate on the subject, but I am minded not to press the issue because the Minister clearly stated that climate change was included. Their lordships may wish to look at the issue in greater detail, and we would be happy to return to it. The nub of our objection, as I have said—I will not go on about it at great length again—is that the national policy statement should be a parliamentary, not a Government, statement. That is why I tabled amendments suggesting that it should be approved by both Houses. On that basis, I will press those amendments in due course.