Planning Bill

In that case, I beg his pardon; I shall reframe my answer. If the NPS has to be reviewed, clearly it would take as long as required, although we would try to do it quickly. The extent of the review would depend on the way in which the NPS was perceived as being out of date. One would have to judge the scope of the challenge in front of the NPS review. Following the review, the Secretary of State has some choices. She can amend, withdraw or leave the statement as it was, depending on the findings of the review. If she amended the NPS, an assessment of sustainability would have to be carried out, and there would have to be consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, unless the amendment did not materially affect the policy. There is a proper procedure, which is understood, on what reviews will involve. I hope that I have answered most of these questions; if not, perhaps the noble Earl can tell me and I shall write to him. On Amendment No. 327 and the stand part debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled a number of amendments. I have described the power of intervention set out in Clauses 105 and 106. I hope that saying a little more about the power of intervention set out in Clause 105 will address the concerns of Members of the Committee before I move on to Amendment No. 327. Clause 105 provides that if the Secretary of State considers it necessary to review an NPS, the commission can then be directed by her to suspend its consideration of the application until the review has been completed. As I said in response to the noble Earl, that power might be used if the Secretary of State considered the NPS to be out of date, and so on. The clause is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State has an option short of intervening. We have two clauses doing slightly different things to allow the Secretary of State, when there is a significant change in circumstances, to take the decision herself. Clause 105 gives her the other option of being able to require a review. As I explained, there is some room for manoeuvre. That means that there is some scope for proper judgment on the degree of urgency, and the tests set out in Clause 106 are clear on that. Amendment No. 327 would expand the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can suspend the examination. The effect would be to give Ministers the right to suspend examination of, and a decision on, an application if they considered that the NPS should be reviewed before the application is decided, regardless of any change in circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, essentially asked me what ““change in circumstances”” means. It does indeed cover a change in Government. It would cover, for example, changes to the evidence on the basis of which the policy was developed—such as a change in oil prices meaning that we would have to revise our air passenger projections. The change could be driven by a European directive. It can cover a wide range of political and other circumstances. We are after providing a stable, long-term framework for planning and investment. We are not in the habit of making decisions on a whim. In the context of NPSs, which are supposed to be long term and robust, the phrase ““a change of circumstances”” is reasonable and not unduly restrictive. In Clause 106, Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 would require that the Secretary of State would no longer have regard to the views of the commission when deciding whether or not there is an urgent need in the national interest for an application to be decided. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns here, but it is important that the Secretary of State listens to the views of the commission when determining whether there is a genuinely urgent need to decide an application. An element of that urgency is bound to spring from the nature of the project, and the IPC, knowing the project, will be in a unique position to advise on it. That is why we have provided subsection (3). The cumulative effect of Amendments Nos. 327, 331 and 332 is to broaden the way in which Ministers could suspend the NPS to intervene in an application and direct the IPC to examine the application and prepare a report. However, the Bill already strikes the right balance between preserving the independence of the IPC and ensuring that appropriate safeguards exist. In summary, the Bill provides Ministers with a power to suspend an application before the IPC and, in a limited number of circumstances, to intervene and take the decision on the application in place of the IPC, but attaches clear conditions to that. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, Members of the Committee will be able to withdraw their amendments.