Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Jenkin of Roding (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 14 October 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Planning Bill.


Planning Bill

I have lit a fuse that has gone off all round the Committee. The anxieties about Clause 12 are very real and, with the greatest respect to the Minister, I am far from satisfied that she has answered all the queries. I heard what she said, for instance, about the aviation White Paper, but I am completely unclear as to what further processes the Government envisage if they intend to build on the aviation White Paper as the core of a new national policy statement. I was wise not to try to speak to all the amendments in this group because everyone who has spoken—and I am extremely grateful to all those who did—has raised considerable anxieties. I heard clearly what the noble Baroness said and I note that there is no temptation to cut corners and no question of bypassing the requirements of the Bill, but I am not at all clear, from what she said, how that is going to be achieved. The aviation White Paper is one example and a number of others were mentioned. I do not want to prolong the debate. This has turned out to be an important issue. We all support the concept of the national policy statements. We have a number of queries about the details and the procedure but I think that all parts of the Committee consider it a positive and encouraging step forward. I want to see the Bill on the statute book with that in it, but the suggestion that the Government can go back and rake over old policy statements and, as it were, tart them up so that they appear to comply with the requirements of the Bill is immensely worrying. The noble Baroness should not be surprised if a number of noble Lords in various parts of the Committee, having studied her remarks carefully—as I shall certainly do—will want to come back at a later stage to try to get greater clarity and, if necessary, perhaps strike Clause 12 from the Bill. But that is for the future. For now, of course, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 43 to 55 not moved.] Clause 5 agreed to. Clause 6 [Review]:


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c627 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Disclosure of information Construction Civil proceedings Elizabeth line Airports Carbon capture and storage Health hazards Electricity generation Infrastructure Hazardous substances Freight Electric cables Heathrow Airport Planning permission Planning Ports Natural gas Nuclear power Offshore structures Power stations Railways Parliamentary scrutiny Railway network Public participation Passengers Parish and town councils National parks Pipelines Scotland Sewage Transport Storage Regional planning and development Wales Waste management Renewable energy Roads Wind power Rural areas Stansted Airport Leukaemia Water treatment Trans-European networks Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Nationally significant infrastructure projects Permitted development rights
Legislation
Planning Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk