---

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to the size of some of the plants, although without the ability to use visual aids in the Chamber, I shall have to rely on the powers of description rather than on anything else. As it stands, clause 9 is about circumventing the local planning system, despite the fact that planning is deemed by most of our constituents to be the most important responsibility of local government. That is why people argue for keeping local councils, because it is the local councillors who are in touch with people’s concerns about planning issues in particular. The importance of planning as a local government function was borne out by all the research done by the Local Government Commission for England when we last looked at reorganising local authorities and considered whether we should abolish district councils in favour of unitary authorities or county councils. I shall take the House rather slowly through clause 9, because it is actually very sinister. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is assiduous in considering such matters, will try to follow the provisions with me. Clause 9(1) states:"““The Secretary of State . . . shall . . . .carry out a review of the effect in England of development orders made by virtue of section 59(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990””." It says nothing about whether the Secretary of State has to consult anyone. Subsection (2) states:"““The purpose of the review is to enable the Secretary of State to form a view as to what provision (or further provision) such development orders should make””" about the installation of microgeneration equipment. There is no reference to what evidence, if any, should be considered by the Minister, and neither is there any requirement that he should publicise any evidence. The most sinister and dangerous element of the clause is that the purpose of the review is not objective or neutral. As line 22 makes clear, the purpose is"““to facilitate development in England . . . of equipment, apparatus or appliances for microgeneration””," irrespective of whether such development has an adverse impact on the beauty of our surroundings or visual amenity. I can almost hear the promoter of the Bill or perhaps the Minister saying, ““Don’t worry; once the review is published, it will be possible for local authorities, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Wildlife Trusts and so on to give their input.”” Such a common-sense safeguard is, however, specifically precluded by subsection (3), which states that"““the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the review, including his view . . . and the reasons for it.””" There is no provision for consultation on his conclusions. Even worse, there is no provision to allow for modification of his view as expressed in the review report, because subsection (4) contains this requirement:"““The report must also set out what provision . . . if any, the Secretary of State proposes to make in development orders . . . in consequence of the review.””" The clause goes on to state:"““Where the Secretary of State proposes to make provision . . . in development orders in consequence of the review, he must . . . exercise his powers under section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990””," and he must do so as soon as is ““reasonably practicable””. In other words, there is no provision for parliamentary discussion, public debate or consultation. That is all too familiar from this Government.