Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 144: 144: Clause 24, page 15, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— ““(a) one end of the railway will (when constructed) be in England and the other end of it in Scotland,”” The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 145. First, I cannot see why the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have been grouped with mine; they address a totally different point. Perhaps they are all to do with railways, but it is hard on the Minister and rather disrupts the thought process to lump all this stuff together. In Part 3 we are dealing with nationally significant infrastructure projects. The UK is a nation; Scotland is a nation; England is a nation. In railways, there is no apparent link in future developments to what might be happening north of the border. In Clause 16, which refers to electric lines, there is a link to Scotland; in Clause 20, which refers to pipelines, there is a link to Scotland. I should have raised Clause 21, on highways, because it does not relate to Scotland. The point of tabling the amendments is simply to say: is it not a little stupid to have a project in England to develop a railway that could go right up to the border with Scotland but not beyond that? What discussions are under way with Scotland? What proposals are there for major infrastructure projects for highways and railways that will run across the border, so that we join up both Governments and get some sort of co-ordination? I beg to move.