Planning Bill

My Lords, the cornerstone of this Bill is the national policy statements and the robust processes that each statement must go through before it can be designated as a national policy statement. There are strict processes regarding consultation and publicity, and the noble Baroness has said, "““we want there to be a proper national debate””,—[Official Report, 15/7/08; col. 1163.]" strict processes regarding parliamentary requirements, appraisals of sustainability and compliance with all existing legislation, both UK and European. All this is excellent stuff until we get to Clause 12, where it is quite extraordinary that the Government can just dust down policies regardless of how old they are or whether they are able to meet the correct procedures. Like other noble Lords, I agree that if opponents to a national policy statement felt that the Government had cut corners or had not followed the strict processes set out in the Bill, there would be legal challenges not only in the UK but in the European courts. This would bog down and delay the process of speeding up planning decisions, which is one of the core aims of the Bill. Amendment No. 46 seeks to leave out Clause 12. Before noble Lords opposite get too exercised, it is a probing amendment in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will clarify one or two issues, if he has not already done so. If Clause 12 were removed, all national policy statements would have to go through all the rigorous processes from scratch. Some would argue that that is exactly what should happen. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, argued in Committee—and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has just repeated it—that that would be absurd when certain processes had already been carried out. She referred to Clause 12 ensuring that: "““Ministers can take on board all the good work, the analysis, the evidence and the judgments that have gone into making current policy sound … It is not sensible to throw that work away. We cannot start from scratch. It would be completely ridiculous to do that””.—[Official Report, 14/10/08; col. 624.]" I totally agree with her, provided that the previous processes had been conducted according to the high standards set out in the Bill as though it had been started from scratch. Since the Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has listened to the concerns expressed by noble Lords around the House and I would like to put on record our thanks to her and her team for coming back on Report with these government amendments which seek to make the process more watertight. The Minister also wrote a letter explaining the aims of the government amendments which have been so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—namely, first, to make it explicit that all national policy statements have to meet the tests set out in the Bill for consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and appraisal of sustainability; secondly, that parliamentary scrutiny of each draft national policy statement will start from scratch; and, thirdly, to ensure that no national policy statement will be designated where there has been a significant change in circumstances that was not anticipated at the time and, had it been, would have meant that the policy would have been materially different. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for putting on record the Government’s thinking in these areas, but I would like to delve a little deeper. In Committee, a number of noble Lords, including me, used the air transport White Paper 2003 as our template for this clause. Although the Government’s policy for air transport is no skin off my nose, one way or another it affects tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people and organisations who live and work around Heathrow and Stansted airports. If an air transport NPS were carried out today from scratch, the consultation process would, as the Secretary of State, Hazel Blears, said in another place, "““be subject to debate across the country””.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/07; col. 29.]" The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that where the consultation had been only localised, it would have to go out again for national debate. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that means the consultation on the air transport White Paper. Given the perceived imperfections of the consultation process relating to the air transport White Paper, I would like to know where the Government stand on this. If they get it wrong, no doubt there will be numerous legal challenges that will delay the whole process, which we would all prefer to avoid. Will the Minister confirm that the White Paper, or any other dusted-down old policy, will have to be subject to all the subsequent legislation—specifically, the strategic environment assessment and the habitats directive? If I heard him correctly, he said that they would have to be. What does the Minister envisage would happen, once the Secretary of State had responded to recommendations by Parliament, if the Secretary of State did not follow and act on the recommendations that Parliament had proposed? Parliament might say that a process had been inadequate and the Secretary of State might respond that no further action would be forthcoming. Does the Minister feel that, by doing that, the Secretary of State would leave herself open to legal challenges? The Minister said that he wishes to ensure that no national policy statement will be designated where there has been a significant change in circumstances that was not anticipated at the time. Again using the air transport White Paper as a template, does the Minister feel that the following subsequent changes are sufficient for the Government to look again at the issue? First, in the new Acts and directives that I have referred to, and now in the Climate Change Bill, it seems increasingly difficult to reconcile the policy set down in the White Paper with the wider UK policy context for addressing the problems of climate change. We heard in the first Question earlier today about the problems with aviation and climate change. Secondly, the structure of the UK airports market will soon be significantly changed, now that the Competition Commission has called for the BAA monopoly to be broken up. If London’s three main airports are to be separately owned, it would seem entirely wrong for the Government to predetermine, in advance of any planning applications, which ones should be allowed new runways and on what timescale. This may be why the Competition Commission has been critical of the prescriptive nature of the air transport White Paper. Thirdly, the recent dramatic change in the global economic climate requires the air transport White Paper’s demand for protections for air travel, based on forecasts produced in May 2000, to be reassessed. No one can now seriously believe that we are still in a business-as-usual situation regarding future growth in the market for air travel. Fourthly, the Government’s own Sustainable Development Commission has called for an independent review of the evidence base underpinning the air transport White Paper, but the Government amendment says that subsection (1) does not apply to the pre-commencement statement if the Secretary of State thinks—I emphasise that—that there has been a significant change in any circumstances. Here there seems to be ample wriggle room for the Government. Who would be advising the Secretary of State that there had been a sufficient change of circumstances? Would it be the parliamentary scrutiny committee looking at national policy statements, would it be the IPC or would it be by weight of representation from individuals and other bodies? Does the Secretary of State have to listen? What would happen if she did not? Would she lay herself open to legal proceedings, which is something that we all want to avoid? I apologise for taking up so much of the House’s time, but we must get the whole business of pre-commencement statements right lest we lay ourselves open to a plethora of legal proceedings and delays.