Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010

My Lords, I understand that it may be updated again. It is accurate as of today, but these are complicated matters. I understand the importance of having certainty for people who are going to make applications to the IPC. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked whether the department was producing for applicants a complete list of the have-regards that will apply. We will consider whether guidance needs to be given on this, and will discuss the matter with the IPC. I take the thrust of the noble Lord’s point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether there was any more. The answer is that there is not: everything that we are aware of is covered. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, asked whether the inquisitorial rather than adversarial approach indicated a behind-the-scenes stitch-up. I do not believe that that is a fair and proper description. I note the reference by the noble Lords, Lord Bates and Lord Jenkin, to the role as they see it of the Secretary of State, who would have a decision-making role with the IPC if an NPS was not in place, but not otherwise. I hope that I have dealt with every point that has been raised. If I have not, I would encourage noble Lords to ask again. If they do not, I will take the opportunity to say that this is an important change to how we proceed with major infrastructure projects. Noble Lords will be aware of data and statistics showing how long it has taken some major projects to come to fruition through the existing planning process. There is a crying need for change, and this order is part of delivering that. I hope that noble Lords will support it. Motion agreed. Committee adjourned at 5.58 pm.