Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 42: 42: Clause 12, page 6, line 17, after ““may”” insert ““exercise the power conferred by section 5(1) to”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 42 to 46 directly respond to the views and concerns expressed by noble Lords opposite in Committee on the issue of pre-commencement statements of policy and whether they could be designated as national policy statements once this Bill becomes law. There was particular concern that no proposal should go to the IPC on the basis of a national policy statement that failed to take account of significant changes of circumstance since the policy was issued, where that circumstance was both unanticipated and not properly provided for. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in introducing his amendments during the Committee stage, was concerned that the Secretary of State might, "““designate existing policy statements, however old they may be, as national policy statements without the need for further appraisal””.—[Official Report, 14/10/08; col. 617.]" The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, likewise worried that Clause 12 suggested that the Secretary of State could, "““dust down an old policy, regardless of how old it is or whether any or all of the correct procedures and legislation have been complied with””.—[Official Report, 14/10/08; col. 618.]" The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was concerned that Clause 12 could, "““introduce an element of retrospective legislation””.—[Official Report, 14/10/08; col. 623.]" We have given a good deal of consideration to these concerns. I know that they were particularly felt in relation to the air transport White Paper, which is why I have personally been engaged with the issue and am speaking to these amendments on behalf of the Government. Accordingly, government Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 seek to clarify that where the Secretary of State wishes to use existing statements of policy or work that was done for the purpose of existing statements of policy, the standards set out in the Bill still apply. All national policy statements, including those designated under Clause 12, must meet the standards for appraisal of sustainability, public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will not be able, in the words of the noble Earl, simply to dust off an existing policy statement and designate it as a national policy statement for the purposes of this Bill without meeting the requirements set out in these new provisions. Furthermore, where the Secretary of State comes to designate a national policy statement under Part 2, the Secretary of State will have to ensure that this complies with the UK’s obligations under Community law and other relevant legal frameworks. However, having proposed these changes to meet the concerns of the House, we continue to stand by Clause 12 and seek the support of the House in so doing. In some cases, considerable technical, scientific and public consultation work has already been undertaken in the context of pre-commencement statements of policy, as well as work which continues to have relevance to the nation’s current and future circumstances. We believe that in these cases it would be not merely foolish but extremely wasteful of public resources to throw away all the work which has gone into existing policy statements and start again from scratch. It would also generate significant and unnecessary uncertainty for business, causing economic damage. Our amendments accordingly make it clear that the Secretary of State can take into account the work that has already been done towards pre-commencement statements of policy in order to build up new national policy statements. I should add that further work may well be necessary to ensure that new national policy statements meet the tests laid out in this Bill. There will be a new appraisal of sustainability for every national policy statement. The Secretary of State will also have to satisfy himself that consultation on a national policy statement meets the standards for consultation, even where some prior consultation has been taken into account. This might require additional national-level consultation to be undertaken over and above that done at the local level for previous policy statements. I believe that the amendments strike a sensible and effective balance on this issue and show that the Government have been listening to the concerns of the House. I commend these provisions and I beg to move.