Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 359A: 359A: Clause 116, page 60, line 13, leave out subsection (3) The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 359A is in a large group, in which I have a great number of amendments. If I lose my place, I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me. The juggling required for this sort of group is physical and it is not within the normal repertoire of politicians. Amendment No. 359A is an amendment to Clause 116(3), which provides that a development consent order, "““may make provision relating to … matters ancillary””." However, in Clause 145 we learn that the development consent order may remove the requirement for consent by a ““relevant body””. Through this amendment I seek an assurance from the Government that this is not directed at operational consents. The Government will be aware of the concern of the Environment Agency, which has contacted me with regard to this provision. It has said that it would be unlikely to agree to transfer operational consents save in exceptional circumstances and that the urgent need to streamline the planning system for major infrastructure coupled with the complexities of the consents regime has meant that the Bill is unable to draw a clear distinction between those consents necessary to implement infrastructure projects and regulation of the subsequent operation of the infrastructure. Amendment No. 360 probes the extent of Clause 116(5) and registers some concerns about it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented that it was not aware of comparable legislative powers being given to anyone other than a Minister or to be exercisable other than by statutory instrument. As the committee points out, the Government are clear that the ability of the IPC to overwrite statutes is in fact at the heart of the Bill, and thus is perhaps not unrelated to Clause 101 on which we considered amendments last week and to which we might return. I am not entirely comforted by there being an order by statutory instrument which is not subject to parliamentary procedure. To what scrutiny is it likely to be subject? In the Commons the Committee was told that the only pieces of legislation that can be altered are those that the promoter includes in the application; that any Member will be able to scrutinise the model provisions and force a parliamentary debate on them, and that the IPC as the decision-maker, although sometimes the Secretary of State, "““will only be able approve the application and make an order when that is in accordance with the relevant national policy statement””.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning Bill Committee, 29/1/08; col. 488.]" I have some difficulty in following all this. Paragraph 25 of the Government’s response to the DPRR Committee says that the clause is very tightly worded so as to allow the amendment or exclusion of statutory provision only where it is ““strictly necessary””, but Clause 116(5)(b) does not use such words; rather it states ““necessary or expedient””. That is a very different position. I should be grateful for an explanation of this. Amendment No. 362 and the subsequent raft of amendments take us to Schedule 5 entitled: "““Provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, development””," I ask the Government to justify their inclusion. The first amendment concerns the provision to allow the IPC to provide for: "““Charging tolls, fares and other charges””." This is interesting and perhaps goes beyond what one might have expected the IPC to be able to do. Will it be able to provide for them in principle or regulate them? How will this operate? If the IPC gets into the realm of tolls, it will be going further than most readers of what has been going on would expect. All of these amendments seek to take out the relevant provisions. Amendment No. 363 relates to, "““The operation and maintenance of a transport system””." Is it really the IPC’s job to become involved in operating and maintaining a transport system? Amendment No. 364 relates to, "““Entering into an agreement for the provision of police services””." We seem to be moving further and further away from planning. I can understand that some of the projects which are the subject of the Bill will be very sensitive in terms of security and might need special protection, but, again, this seems to take us a long way forward. Similarly, Amendment No. 365 relates to, "““The creation of a harbour authority””," and, "““Changing the powers and duties of a harbour authority””." Amendment No. 366 relates to, "““The transfer of property, rights, liabilities or functions … The transfer, leasing, suspension, discontinuance and revival of undertakings””." This is not linked to anything. Transferring property, rights, liabilities and functions, is again extreme. I wonder why they are in there. Amendment No. 367 relates to, "““The payment of contributions … The payment of compensation””." Amendment No. 368 relates to, "““The alteration of borrowing limits””." Having spent many hours in this Chamber arguing about central government control of matters such as borrowing limits, where it should not get involved, giving this away in a schedule to the Bill requires some explanation. Amendments Nos. 384 to 387 raise similar points in the main part of the Bill. Amendment No. 384 relates to ignoring the effect of a bridge or tunnel. I am not an engineer, but is it possible in this context for the IPC to be told that it must ignore the effect of a bridge or tunnel? Amendment No. 385 relates to highways and a toll regime. Amendment No. 386 relates to harbours. Clause 140(5) states that the provision may include, in particular, certain matters. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what else might be included. Amendment No. 387 seeks to probe Clause 140(5)(b), which gives wide powers to a harbour authority. Perhaps the kind question—I am being a little scathing—is to ask whether this provision replicates existing legislation. I see lots of nods coming from the Government Front Bench so I have not disgraced myself entirely. We will have that on the record. If it were an entirely novel provision, it would require to be justified. I beg to move.