Planning Bill

I indicated to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that, as a supporter of the Rail Freight Group, I should like to emphasise one point that he has made. No other area covered by this Bill is so susceptible to nimbyism as rail freight interchanges. Everyone in the country wants to get more freight off the roads and on to rail, which requires rail freight interchanges, but the very people who unanimously say, ““Get more freight on to rail””, hate any rail freight interchange anywhere in their town or city. That is very glaring nimbyism, which leaves me to support the figure of 30 hectares rather than 60 hectares for the reasons given by my noble friend. Many local authorities will reject these rail freight interchanges if they are put to them for their consent. As we know, the heart of this Bill is about major national strategic questions going to the national Planning Infrastructure Commission not just because of procedural niceties but, in effect, to overcome some of the contradictions arising from nimbyism. I repeat: it is not that people do not want the freight to go on to rail but that they do not want the rail freight interchange. I hope that the Minister will give some more thought to this or at least an explanation as to whether sufficient work has been done to ascertain whether in the next 10 or 20 years 30 hectares would not be nearer the sort of pattern of rail use through rail freight interchanges that would be conducive in practice to getting more freight off the roads and on to the railways.